Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Where someone is from is usually 'relative'

I notice a lot of argument on this page about 'where was Alexander from'. In understanding what is known of his origins, it is necessary to understand how people talk to each other in real life, and how this has changed with our improved knowledge of the globe. In the past, people were generally ignorant of geography beyond their immediate surroundings. 'Where are you from?', means not always 'where were you born?', but 'where have you come from?', ie 'where have you arrived from?', your previous port of departure. Someone who has travelled much, who perhaps has no particular place of residence, as Alexander certainly in later life exemplified, if not in earlier life, might very well mention only the last place that his particular conversation-partner was familiar with, if he had travelled to Greece through Macedonia, then perhaps to a Greek person, he was 'from Macedonia' - to the Macedonians, from wherever he had arrived from to there, and so on. But that might not necessarily mean he was born in Macedonia, to Macedonian parents. And even if he was, it may not mean they were ethnically Macedonian. (And, yes, I did read the discussion already about the fact that Ancient Macedonians were in fact Greek, I used these terms just because of that common misunderstanding. I don't want to give any idea that might influence people's research, since I myself am quite ignorant about what the original historical documents might show. Who knows, maybe he was Slavic!) -- 60.240.129.13 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? His grandfather was born in the Thessaly region, Slavs were not living in the south Balkans around that time.

In 1912 Macedonia ws spread into 3 parts.One small part left to Bulgaria and one to Greece. Sine the 1912, greeks keep propaganda that this is their part. They changed all macedonian names into greeks.In the 50's they expelled all macedonians from northern Greece, (egzodus of Aigen people), in order to cut every relations of Macedonians with Northern Greece and province Macedonia. Dear greeks, the fact that Alexander was never considered a greek in Olympic games, saying he was a barbarian, violetn, non-greek, ilusrates that he was a something different than hellenic.But hen he conquered the world, then you loved him !! You accused actual macedonian Governement for building statues of Alexander, naming streets and airport?..Why?? Is it so bad?..why you don\t complain to the streets of Alexander or monuments in Belgrade, or let say in Paris, London..wherever?...you have just this attitude for Macedonia. I have an issue for you..Why in the 60's 150 books of Belgian royal academy titled "The diary of Alexander" dissapeared?..|from 150 books, only 2 remains. Greeks around the globe burn it, like they never exists, but I have the one.Why you avoid and destroye everything that says that Alexander was not of a hellenic origin?? I guess it is pretty obvius..

Dragan of Republika Makedonija (Not northern, upper or whatever..but Republika Makedonija !!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragan.ristov (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My dear FYROMIAN friends! For how long will you focus on what greeks were saying? Why do you accept as honest a statement from a greek that calls macedonians barbarians and as dishonest another from another greek that calls them greeks. To be called barbarian by the greeks could also be used for uneducated people, not just for non-greeks. When will you understand that what matters is not what it was said about them by various people in antiquity but what we can today by scientific archeological methods define that they were and by what they are historicaly and culturaly verified to be! How can you close your eyes to the cultural identification of south Greeks and Macedonians in so many ways and continue to accept so easily that FYROMIANS are descendants of ancient Macedonians. For how long will this lie stand? For how long can you continue to play with word definitions and ignore the art and the language, the names and the religion ( the same characteristics that define a nation today to ), for how long can you search for differences betwin greeks and macedonians and ignore the similitude? How long can a lie last? Because Alexander is considered greek for almost two and a half thousand years,.... Do you think you will discover something that the rest of humanity did not see? Do you want to demonize greeks for consealing the truth, because that means you have to demonize the bigest part of the world and the scientific comunity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.133.214 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "Barbarian" was used for Greeks and non-Greeks. So you can't use the word barbarian alone to prove someone was greek or non-greek. It's not a valid argument because it doesn't prove anything. Why use the word barbarian to prove his Greekness when at the same time prove his non-Greekness, it doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.116.73 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander III Macedonian

To the fringe view advocates, below, can you please point to the original historical texts that you are supposedly "citing" that support your faux assertions. Please be sure to not cite them out of context as is usually the case.

Many, like your good selves, lack the basic ability to read Ancient Greek, so you lack the ability to even reference the original sources, and comprehend the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians, where they themselves considered themselves as Greek, other Greeks considered them as Greeks, foreign people considered them as Greek, they spoke Greek, they prayed and sacrificed to the Olympian Greek Gods of Mt. Olympus in the heart of Macedonia, the cultural artifacts of the Ancient Macedonians are all clearly Greek, all their names and toponyms are all Greek, they spread the Greek civilization up to the Punjab of India, they participated in the Greek only Olympic games, they shared Greek symbols, myths and customs with other Greeks. There is no doubt they are Greek, just like the Boeotians, Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, Corinthians, and Phocians etc. are all Greeks. The Slav nationalists of the FYROM would like to believe otherwise. However these Slavs have nothing, zip, zero, nada, nichts at all to do with these Greek people.

No other archeological artifacts other than Greek artifacts have never, ever been found. Yet, the above fringe groups, emanating in particular from FYROM and its supported diaspora, continue to peddle their unfounded revisionist dross, whilst putting forward no evidence to support their fringe views. Moreover, theories like theirs are most dangerous to the extreme. They tend to lead to crackpot fanatics putting forward theories that can be grouped in with dangerous hoaxes such as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which is another crackpot theory that can also be safely ignored and tossed into the dustbin of history.

With respect to Dan Tompkins, I've had a discussion with him on the blog http://archaeoastronomy.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/macedonia-from-bad-to-worse/, which then continued on the blog http://modern-macedonian-history.blogspot.com/2009/06/reader-comment-pr-tompkins-arguments-as.html, a while back, and have found the manner by which he argues his position to be disappointing, in so far as, he tackles the discussion with somewhat questionable and less than scholarly argumentation.

Moreover, Tompkins poorly researched opinions regarding the naming dispute between FYROM and Greece, which he freely and openly tangles himself within, whilst knowingly stepping out of his area of expertise and compromising his professional independence and integrity are all clearly present.

It definitely does raise questions regarding his professional independence and the integrity of his opinion.

Many of his arguments in the above mentioned blog smacked of political bias against the Greeks, were poorly researched, and most of all lacked credibility. Although the more telling points are: (1) why did he bother to tangle himself in such a dispute, and (2) how he tackled the subject matter at hand. In particular, how easily he could have answered his own questions, if he had bothered to speak to the Greek side as well, which he clearly had not, and not rely entirely on the point of view emanating from the Slavs of the FYROM.

Tompkins makes many assertions, although provides no evidence that would tie together his arguments in a cogent manner so as not contradict all other objective facts at hand. His statement "That’s why Spartans and Athenians treat him with such contempt at the end of Book 8." is his purely fanciful, revisionist and speculative interpretation, rather than it be grounded on any objective or scholarly facts. Tompkins referenced quote to Hall's statement of warning against a "transhistorically static definition of Greekness." neither lends nor detracts support from the fringe argument that he is attempting to construct. In fact, it can be said that the above reference supports the argument that the Ancient Macedonians considered themselves as Greek and not the contrary.

Please take note those from the FYROM and its diaspora. If you follow the above discussion blog with Dan Tompkins and myself, you will realize that I was able to eventually tease out of Dan Tompkins his position with respect to the FYROM fringe view, where he clearly confirms that the Ancient Macedonians have absolutely no relationship, whatsoever to do with the Slavs, of the FYROM. See the actual extract, below:

My question: “Save what Borza, et al. have said on this matter, even if, all we can say, about the Greek speaking people of Ancient Macedonia, is just that, there is no logical or rational justification to take a cognitive leap towards a proposition that the Ancient Macedonians have any relationship, whatsoever with the Slavs, of the FYROM.”

Dan Tompkins Answer: "which is one reason I did not."

The below assertion, made by Capital Markets, that there is a large academically dissenting view by putting forward one (1) Dan Tompkins as evidence to support such a position is utterly unconvincing and frankly disingenuous, since you fail to indicate that three hundred and forty seven (347) eminent historians and archeologists, to date, and from all around the world, who have independently signed the following letter, http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html, and thus have taken a diametrically opposite view to his and yours.

Furthermore, the below dissenting fringe cohorts, which are more than likely from FYROM or its diaspora, demand that such fringe views be included. Fortunately there is such a rule in WP against such argumentation, see WP:UNDUE.

Ικονοκλαστη (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander III of Macedon, popularly known to history as Alexander the Great, ("Mégas Aléxandros", Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1]) was an Ancient Macedonian (NOT GREEK). He ruled the kingdom of Macedonia, ancient Macedonia, which is a territory that covers present Republic of Macedonia (which people claim to be his ancestors), Province "Makedonia" which is in Greece, but named "Makedonia" after 1991, before was named Northern Greece (that's how the Name issue appeared, and small territories in Albania and Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.28.105 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He was fighting against Greece. He was saying that he is not Greek and that he is Macedonian. He himself was saying how the Greeks are not Macedonians. That is why he is Macedonian. He cant be Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.17.105 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the exhaustive discussions on this page and in the archives. BTW not a comment on anyone here or elsewhere, just realized how much time I spent reading it all! :@MephYazata (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To say he was a Greek King implies he was king of Greece. There was no Greece as a nation at that time. Logically if he was the king of Macedonia he was a Macedonian king. Just as George I was an English king even though he was an ethnic German. The Kings of the Hellenes were not Greek and Catherine the Great was not a German Czarina. Nitpyck (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs)

Greece is a term that comes from a Hellenic tribe (Graeci) that colonized parts of (present day) Italy and all Hellenic tribes came to be known erroneously as Greeks in the west. A bit (a lot) earlier the Ionic migration to Asia caused Hellenic tribes to be named Yunan in the east. Please keep that in mind when you decide who is Greek or not. Archaeologists and historians have left little doubt that Alexander's ancestors were Hellenic. That he fought other Hellenic tribes is nothing new or did you forget that Athenians fought Spartans in huge civil wars? Stop using that disingenuous argument since it detracts from your position FYROMians. The only thing worth discussing is what Nitpyck said. There was no Greece (or Hellas) as a nation before Alexander. They only united to fight the Persians, or each other! But they still felt a bond, a kinship, to each other and were pretty much racist against all other nations and tribes, considering them inferior. Finally, since Alexander united all Hellenes (except a decadent, lonely Sparta) it can be said that there was indeed a nation created by him, or more correctly, brought together by him (through bloody conquest). 89.210.169.135 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Simanos

Why does it seem to be that this article is only one sided. Yes there are sources that say he is greek but there have been sources to say he was macedonian. To make this article accurate it should be changed to unknown. What says the greek sources have higher authority over any others? This leads to belief that other articles form wikipedia could be one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy38 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree! There an extreme bias by not including the dissenting view. Considering that there are plenty of Western scholars who question whether or not Alexander was Greek, it is rather sad and dishonest to see their view not represented in this article. Here is one, Dan Tompkins, Department of Greek and Roman Classics, Temple University (USA) pericles@temple.edu. You will find that he has done extensive research, he has neither ties to the Greeks or Macedonians, and yet he has found in historic Greek texts that Alexander was mostly despised by the Greeks. Not only because of his conquests over them, but also his persistent lobbying to be recognized as a Greek. He lobbied to be recognized as a Greek, for the same reason he later had Persian children as well as encouraging his followers, Persian, Greeks and Macedonians to inter-marry. A clever plot at maintaining a multi-cultural empire.

Anyways, whether or not this is 100% accurate, I don't know as I am not a scholar of these matters. What I know is, there is no consensus on whether he was Greek or not in the international academic community. Why then is there such a strong consensus on this here article? It doesn't make any logical sense. I am also not here in the game of proving he wasn't Greek. Again, I repeat, if there is a academically dissenting view, then this view has to be represented in the article as equally as the view being propagated. Whether we like it or not!

The claim to be a “Hellene” is one, but only one, of several cards this Alexander plays. He protects himself and his people by cannily playing the odds (and using the talent of silver his mines produced daily). That’s why Spartans and Athenians treat him with such contempt at the end of Book 8. Scholars of ethnicity and acculturation in antiquity won’t be surprised at his ambiguous status, especially given Jonathan Hall's warning against a "transhistorically static definition of Greekness." (Hall, p. 166) Prof. Miller's letter shows no awareness of the anthropologically sophisticated work on ancient ethnicity now being produced in our field.

Capital Markets (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

TERMINOLOGY - Beginning of the text

I am sorry, I must warn you my friends that any change of the most important part of the text, as its beginning is, could not be done as some people did it. The below formulation is academically accepted formulation which is supported by hundreds of articles, books and scholarly reports. Argeads were of Hellenic origins. There are literary no new and accepted references in the literature that could support a claim that the Argeads were of Greek origin. The term "Greek" is of much later date and it just can not be used here. The old text which has been in place probably for some time is slightly wrong and must be changed. The affirmations that are in the new version are: 1. Alexander III was a king of Macedonia or of Macedon; 2. Alexander III claimed Hellenic origins; 3. And we must be explicit: He did NOT claim “Greek” origins, although today, we freely can say “Greek”, but this would be not exact in the historical sense, and this is a page on history.

So please do not undo. Of course, if you find some mistakes, you can correct them if you have strong arguments. Therefore it runs as follows:

Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BC), popularly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος, Mégas Aléxandros), was a king (basileus) of Macedon from the Argead dynasty who claimed the Hellenic origins, who created one of the largest empires in ancient history.Draganparis (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of your sources. Cite them properly and show that there are no other opinions in recent academic publications. That he is from the Argead dynaty claiming to be Greek is sourced by the ancients. That the Greeks called themselves 'Hellenes' and not Greeks is another issue. What exactly is a 'Hellenic origin' if it's not Greek? Is this another word for including Hellenized people and people who didn't consider themselves Greeks nor were considered Greeks by the ancient Greeks? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My apology, but we probably disagree. I was very clear to what I wanted to say. The Greeks (people who are citizens of "Greece" but often of various ethnic origin) call themselves today Hellenes because THE STATE is called HELLAS. But we do not talk about them! Indeed, the word “greeks” referred to nothing in the time of Argeades. Today this is a language problem which has been sharpened by the modern political conflicts in the region where you apparently, this is just my hypothesis, are taking part. Excuse me if I am wrong. Moreover, a historian Hellenist is NOT studying Modern Greek history; the subject is Hellenism which refers to the ancient Hellenic state organization, history and culture. Not that of “Greece”. Therefore "the Argead dynasty who claimed the Hellenic origins" is a correct statement. I have to state again and again: people who permanently want to introduce ethnic struggles and are permanently introducing ethnic or racial arguments in these or other history texts are not welcome on these pages. Please do not be offended by our disagreement, you may be just happen to give such appearance with the speed of your reaction and apparent tone of the message. So... please undo your last change (And I do not think that you need "sources"; I would avoid Wikipedia and Google as sources and would recommend textbooks.).Draganparis (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Greeks" is very clear to all. Acting as if you do not understand does not serve your arguments. At the time of Argeads, the Greeks (Hellenes) still called themselves Greeks (Hellenes), the Romans already used the word "Graeci" (= Greeks), there is absolutely no academic question regarding what a "Greek" is. Stating that we should write that a persona "claimed to have been Greek/Persian/Chinese" is absurd to say the least. There is no reason for anyone to push any ethnic struggles here nor should or can we respect arguments that have to do with whether you find the word "Greek" obscene or not. No English speaking person says "Hellenic" instead of "Greek", no matter what the Greeks call themselves now or back then. No child learns about "Hellenic" history, they do learn about Greek history, the ancient Greek language, etc etc etc in the same manner as we say Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia when no Greek would call your country thus and would instead say Skopje or FYROM or anything else. Please, refrain from useless lawyering and concentrate on the improvement of articles according to academic standards and not nationalistic ones. I don't know what the agenda is here, but I have been a witness of too many disruptions during the last days regarding words like "Greek" or "Bulgarian" in such kinds of articles and I strongly advise we stop and spend our time in a more creative way for the good of Wikipedia. GK1973 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I said my last word. You may do as you like and continue the "Googwik" science as much as you want... if the other "Googwiks" would permit you. I hope not. Draganparis (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Googwik"!!!???? You must be kidding.... GK1973 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I defined “googwik scientist” earlier in “Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 36”

A "GoogWik scientist" is a special case of a "scientist" who as a sources uses almost exclusively Google and Wikipedia. Since for choosing a reference from the Google a user is his own arbiter, and since Wikipedia is unreliable, we have a multiplication of "referenced" mistakes: the references-supported nonsense. I find it charming and not offending. I am now one of them. You give number of references in your comment to my earlier discussion. Citing one source and saying that it contains something that it does not contain implies that you have never seen the reference. Ignorance of the content of the references that you try to cite and misinterpretation of the sources makes me think that you might be one "googwik scientist". This is not so bad. This is a very< good start. All you have to do is to start really consulting the references and not rely on other peoples interpretations. They are unfortunately very often false.

In the Talk:Hellenism I stated, under the title “The dangers of confounding “political history“ with “cultural history”:

This is my addapted answer to one comment of Brando130 on my talk page. It apples also to other interventions of some people who insist on using “Hellenism” as a poltical term. I put it since this is appropriate page for this and it summarises the problem.

It appears that some Wikipedia “players” purposefully resist my warnings not to use the “Hellenism” as a poltitical notion. Brieflly: it would be a mistake to replace surreptitiously „Hellenism“ with „pan-Hellenism“, i. e. mix “cultural history” with “political history”, and to identify “cultural” with “ethnic”. The illustrative example is when the notion “Hellenic state” is used instead of the “Macedonian state”. Not to mix cultural history with political history is long established method of history writing and serves against the misuse of History for some other, most often, political purposes. The jurisdiction of number of West European countries sanctions the breaches against fair presentation of history, particularly if they may lead to nationalistic, ethnic and racist consequences. So please comply with this. I think I explained sufficiently well in other places what this means. I am ready to explain it again if you still did not grasp it. If you are lacking background to fully understand this, I will be pleased to expand even more on the subject, but not on the Wikipedia pages. Violating these established principles of modern, fair and multicultural society, in spite of being warned, may have serious and unpleasant consequences.Draganparis (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC). Draganparis (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion goes nowhere. I have here a copy of Lazenby, "The Defence of Greece" about the Persian Wars. That makes it pretty clear what is standard academic language today. We also have the word Hellenistic for a cultural phenomena that includes more than the Greeks, but I couldn't yet find any academic source in English about the Hellenes. Cite one or stay away from the keyboard. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. Can not respond to the comments with insulting conotation.Draganparis (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the introductory sentence that your now propos for this article is almost correct. For the origins of the Macedonian dynasty, I suggest to put what Herodotus wrote in the ancient Greek (The Histories, Book 5: Terpsichore, 22; i.e.: V, 22). Exactly as he wrote. This will be fine. Here is the Greek text and the translation (both from http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh5020.htm; with English translation: G. C. Macaulay, (pub. Macmillan, London and NY) [1890]):

22. [1] Ἕλληνας δὲ εἶναι τούτους τοὺς ἀπὸ Περδίκκεω γεγονότας, κατά περ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, αὐτός τε οὕτω τυγχάνω ἐπιστάμενος καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐν τοῖσι ὄπισθε λόγοισι ἀποδέξω ὡς εἰσὶ Ἕλληνες, πρὸς δὲ καὶ οἱ τὸν ἐν Ὀλυμπίῃ διέποντες ἀγῶνα Ἑλληνοδίκαι οὕτω ἔγνωσαν εἶναι. [2] Ἀλεξάνδρου γὰρ ἀεθλεύειν ἑλομένου καὶ καταβάντος ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, οἱ ἀντιθευσόμενοι Ἑλλήνων ἐξεῖργόν μιν, φάμενοι οὐ βαρβάρων ἀγωνιστέων εἶναι τὸν ἀγῶνα ἀλλὰ Ἑλλήνων· Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέδεξε ὡς εἴη Ἀργεῖος, ἐκρίθη τε εἶναι Ἕλλην καὶ ἀγωνιζόμενος στάδιον συνεξέπιπτε τῷ πρώτῳ. ταῦτα μέν νυν οὕτω κῃ ἐγένετο.

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.

What do you want more? So please change accordingly in the main article. You do it so well.Draganparis (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your point here? Do you quote Herodot on the Greekness of the Macedonians or the use of the word "Hellenas" by the said translator? If it is about the first issue you are in the wronng artile, if it is the latter, you don't really expect us to agree that in the academic world we use "Hellenic" over "Greek" now, do you? GK1973 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Let me explain please. I want to say that the right word to use is "Hellenes" (Ἕλληνες). The Greeks would be also happy about it, because they are calling themselves today "ellenika" (ελληνικά), what is the same.

And the right formulation of the first sentence is that

1. Alexander the Great was a king of Macedon (and not Greek king as it is stated now)

2. and that his dynasty and he claimed Hellenic origins (which is disputed, as somebody else mentioned and I think we can put it in the text).

But

3. Stating that he was a “Greek king” does not make much sense since Fillip II was also a king of Macedon and he was having a war against Greeks. His son could not all of a sudden be a Greek king. He was never accepted as a Greek king though. He was more a head of the alliance against Persians. Of course, after his death, Macedonians practically occupied the entire Greece and diadochi were as such “Greek kings” also. No secondary biography of Alexander ever stated something like “the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks”. However, Alexander wanted very much to bring his Macedonians into the great nation of the Hellenes. And he, as I think, succeeded in this in the end, but not only through the wars; the process was long and more through the language at first, and then through education, science and culture. OK?

I think that we may have a concensus now.Draganparis (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1. What you are asking is to not use proper English. This is not logical. The words "Greek King" mean that the King was Greek (as you agree that is logical to state) and leaves out the kingdom, which should make you happy. If we wrote "a king of the Greek kingdom", it would mean that the kingdom was Greek and writing "a king of Greek Macedon" would imply that there was another non-Greek Macedon. You probably understand the phrase wrong. "A Greek king" does not mean "the king of Greece", nor can anyone misunderstand, especially when it is further analyzed "a Greek king of Macedon"

2. Actually all Macedonians claimed Greek ancestry through Makednos and through the Argive followers of the Temenids (the sources talk of a host of followers). That the Argeads claimed Hellenic origin and that this claim was fully accepted by all sources is discussed in the appropriate article. It should not be discussed here. Here we are using the primary (by far) academic opinion.

3. Your whole point is again irrelevant. Even if you were right they would be irrelevant. Now, as for the logic of these arguments :

a. Phillip II was also an Argead, an Olympic victor and was acknowledged as a Greek. The polemical orations of Demosthenes are nothing in front of the bulk of evidence we have from other sources. He also was given votes in the Amphictyony, an alliance reserved for the purest of Greeks and made many wars WITH Greeks against other Greeks. He did not wage war against "Greece". He waged war with his allies against his enemies. Maybe we should also stop calling the Athenians Greek since they fought against many Greek states, or the Lacedaemonians, or the Thebans, the Phoceans, the Achaeans, the Aetolians etc etc etc. A war against other Greek states has nothing to do with anyone's Greekness or not. Even the Persians had Greek allies (among which the Ionian cities, Macedon and Thebes) and this is not the main argument against the Persian's Greekness... He was acknowledged as "Strategos Autocrator of Greece" as was his father voted before him (in English this could be wrongly translated as "Emperor General" but it mostly means "General in Chief"). After his death, the Macedonians did not occupy the rest of Greece. They politically controlled it, they placed garrisons in certain states, but they never made them part of the Macedonian state, nor was it anytime be considered as part of Macedonia as was for example Chalcidike and Amphipolis, places properly annexed. the Diadochi were also "Greek kings" of non-Greek peoples. The Jews even called the Seleucid kingdom Greek in their scriptures. As for the Greeks and the Macedonians, they called the kingdoms according to their geographical position. So, the Seleucid king was "The king of Asia" and the Lagides were "the kings of Egypt". We have multiple examples of texts stating "the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks", as we do have many stating "the Macedonians and the Greeks". Yet... this is also a misleading translation, since the Greeks did not use the definitive article as we use it in English and so we also have many instances of "the Athenians and the Greeks", the Lacedaemonians spoke with the Greeks etc etc

“…saying that it was delivered in the presence of the ambassadors whom the Greeks had sent to you, for you had invited them…" Who received the ambassadors? Non Greeks? hmmm.. according to Aeschynes on the Embassy 2.57) it was the Atheneans...

Now the same man also states :

“For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted.” (Aeschines, on the Embassy 2.32)

I quote Aeschynes because he is a contemporary to Philip and an Athenian. As examples they do not serve the purpose to prove whether the Macedonians were Greeks or not, so please do not bombard us with more quotes that you may think would prove otherwise. I just want to show you that the Greeks did not express themselves as we do here in Wikipedia and of course show you that your claims are utterly erroneous (No secondary biography of Alexander ever stated something like “the Macedonians and the OTHER Greeks). Of course Aeschynes was not a biographer but he is the best example for he perfectly fits the time and place in question.

Now, Alexander did not want to "bring his Macedonians" to the nation of the Greeks. No one ever claimed that. Not any source nor is it supported by modern scholars. He even denied taking part in the Olympics, which he wouldn't had he such an agenda. You probably mean Archelaus and Alexander I, who are said by the proponents of the "old barbabrism" of the Macedonians to have tried that, although there is again no source claiming such a thing. Alexander did not try to impose any non-Macedonian Greek custom, habit etc. He was scolded for trying to introduce barbaric (this is the words used) customs of the conquered peoples of the East.

Even if we accept the theory proposed by the proponents of the non-Greek origin of the Macedonians, this hellenization had started long before Alexander III and by this time was almost if not wholly complete. GK1973 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you both to stop with dumping large amounts of text on these pages!!!! It is true what Draganparis objected below: GK1973 produces pages of arguments without ever giving single source correctly!!! Dumping large amount of text is also obfuscating the essence of the arguments. The question here is whether Alexander the Great, king of Macedon, was “Greek king”. Is the actual Queen of England “German queen”? Of course NOT!! Or did Alexander “claime Greek origins”; or did he even “claime Hellenic origins”. Although the word “Hellenic” is correct, it is customary to use “Greek”. Therefore I would accept “claimed Greek origins”. But I would not be surprised if the majority would accept "Hellenic". Again: please make shorter, concise comments. Long comments are hard to read and, if without sources, irrelevant and damaging for Wikipedia.Herodotus1A (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I left my more detailed answer on the talk page of GK1973 where he left for me this afternoon 33 pages of text!!! I only hope that he/she will be more reasonable in the future and that we will continue to have exchange (not disputes) of ideas. I would like that we finish this dispute here. Herodotus1A is right. The Queen of England is not German Queen, this would be absurd. If you, GK1973, would disagree with somebody in the future, I would recomend that you try short, powerful arguments with full references. And please do not spread nationalism and do not accuse the opponents of being agents of some imaginary political conspiracy. Even if true, this does not prove your argument. I will wait for some time to see the reactions of other people and then change the first sentence to mean that Alexander the Great presumed “Greek origins” and remove that he was a "Greek king". In spite of all trouble, it has been still a pleasure disputing with you, GK1973.Draganparis (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

????? It is a good thing that posts in Wikipedia cannot be fully deleted and the histories of its editors are there for all to access... Your 4 page points that you urged me to answer, after having been copy pasted out of :

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/strabo.html

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/plutarch.html

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/arrian.html

did require a 33 page (self written) answer (of which more than half were ancient texts and your own comments of course).

Never ask a man 40+ questions and then await a short answer...

GK1973 (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I answered on my talk, but you want it public? OK. Here it is:

See my answer on your talk, please. But, did you expect me to respond to your propaganda and dumping page after page of empty imagination and nationalistic or conspiracy accusations, to answer again with normal academic response, as I did couple of times previously??? I sent you what I had already from blind quarrels of FYROM and Greek nationalists. I thought this would suit you better. But, dear friend. I answered on your talk and think that we brought the boat into calm waters. I said, in the end, these days were dynamic and we both learned something. In spite of all, it has been pleasure discussing with you in the end. My message to you is: read more original works. From time to time -may be every two years -I get in these blind discussions. Next time I will use your text to persuade the next blind "Googwick" to start doing normal science and learn something. I hope that after this experience you will tray to produce useful work for Wikipedia. Good luck.Draganparis (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here was about word "Hellenes" not about the question you seam to be possessed by: Greekness of the Macedonians. I have feeling that you are typical “GoogWik” (please this is not an insult), otherwise you would be aware of Hummond’s (who you like) statement that:

“The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbours.” (Hammond NGL: A history of Greece, to 322 B.C., third edition, 1986, p. 534-535; Claredon Press, Oxford.).

As I said, during Hellenistic period they fused - became Greeks (or - if I want to tease you - all became Macedonians!), there is little doubt about this. Hellenism is a cultural term. I would prefer a new term: period of Macedonism - I call it Macedonism because political history is valid genre of history and this was Macedonism. I explained elsewhere why cultural terms should not be used to replace political terms. Droysen certainly initiated something valuable but this should have remained in cultural space. Pity that you certainly did not read any of Arrian, or more from Hammond (for example The Macedonian State, The origin, Institutions and History, Claredon, 1989) to realize the power of Macedonian nationalism.

OK, fine. We could finish this discussion? With so much energy that you have, I am certain, if you were ever my student, I would have managed to get you even up to a degree in Ancient History under the condition, of course, that you do abandon consulting Google and Wikipedia and stick to the texts! However, I recommend you to see the film The Shining (1980) with Jack Nickolson where he also displayed quite high capacity for writing. Try not to follow so close his example.Draganparis (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why you made the comment after your raising "questions" and not before... Making up excuses after you are caught with your fingers in the honey is not a real strong argument now, is it? You keep on accusing me of Googling... What evidence do you have of that? I did not offer any Google sources, you did. I did not offer any Google arguments. You did and keep doing. What you did is unacceptable and you very well know it. However you try to justify your deed, it is done. As for Hammond, just read his paper I pointed you to (JSTOR is not Google, google it up...) and you will see what his position on the matter is (at least in the year of our Lord 1994)... Your bringing up Hammond is especially amusing, as is my "not having read Arrian" (unlike you I did look up your history to see the work you did in Wikipedia and the arguments and sources you have used to better understand your motives and level of contribution)... If you were my student, I doubt I could be as lenient as you might be with me. The posts are there, everyone can read through them (with some patience I admit). Should you try to answer the points I raised or support "your" (sic) quotes of Arrian, I will be very happy to indulge a reading. Should you, though, use the kinds of sources you did last time, I would like to be warned and not discover it myself. And, please, do comment too... Giving your (learned) opinion and interpretation is a fair and necessary thing to do. We are discussing opinions after all... Bare quotes with a general "What's your opinion?" comment can hardly be characterized constructive, can they? Finally, as I have stated multiple times, THIS article is about Alexander III. I can understand what motivates you to go on here, but I would prefer to write what you want in the appropriate articles. Personal challenges and exchange of irrelevant material should be made in our own pages. You also keep on mis-informing the Wikipedia community of our personal dealings, a practice I also deem erroneous to be made in irrelevant talk pages, and I strongly urge you to stop this policy, for it is disruptive. Please, do not force me again to further post answers in irrelevant talk pages (as you did with everyone of your last posts). GK1973 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I have offended you, I sincerely regret. Please accept my apologies.Draganparis (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

All right.. this ends here... Let us spend our time improving Wikipedia instead of hitting at each other. Good editing and Hygienai!GK1973 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What is all that gibberish nonsense, please? I would prefer if FYROM or Greek propaganda would be held OFF THESE PAGES. Please. Does the Queen of England have German ancestors? Yes. Is the actual Queen of England “German queen”? Of course NOT! Did Alexander III claim Greek (Hellenic) ancestors? Yes. Was he then Greek king? CERTAINLY NOT.Herodotus1A (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pourquoi est-ce que j'ai l'impression en comparant leurs contributions que Herodotus1A et Draganparis sont la même personne? (eng) Antipastor (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think because you are just fulfilling your patriotic duties. I suspect, please excuse me if I am wrong, that you are either employed by FYROM (what is less likely) or by Greece (what is more likely) and acting in concordance with 3 or 4 similar professionals or patriots. That “gang” is replacing “Macedonia” with “Greece” all over the places. I can not grasp why and how these are profiting from this: FYROM may be by reserving for that state the name of “Macedonia”, or Greece, may be is attracted by a kind of pan-Hellenism? Anyway, in the meantime, history pages on Wikipedia suffer enormously from bias. Last year my password was even broken, I complained (see may Talk page), no ADMINISTRATOR intervened and I stopped being interested for editing for more then a year. I suspect then that even the "administrator" is in the gang. I just started again last month, and you and your collaborators (my hypothesis only) are reacting. I find it very patriotic and quite normal. But damaging for Wikipedia. I will have to abandon Wikipedia for some time again if nobody would stop this gang in their destructive activity.Draganparis (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again: if the Queen of England, who is from German House of Hanover, is not a „German queen“, AND SHE IS NOT A GERMAN QUEEN, then Alexander III, who could have been from a Greek dynasty, can not be called a “Greek king”. CAN NOT BE CALLED A GREEK KING. This has been a consensus! Make better argument and we will consider it. Why you FYROM nationalist can not finally understand that what you want is one thing, and what has been history is another? Also, Alexander III being Macedonian king and not being Greek king does not disturb you to have your own county called Macedonia or whatsoever, north or all what you want. Capisco?Herodotus1A (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My conclusions is, and the other users should know this:

these pages are edited by the people with strong patriotic feelings for, or employed by FYROM or by Greece who are acting in concordance with 3 or 4 similar professionals or patriots. This “gang” is replacing “Macedonia” with “Greece” all over the places because of to me unclear reasons: FYROM may be by reserving for that state the name of “Macedonia”, or Greece, may be is attracted by a kind of pan-Hellenism, thereby acheiving some gain? In the meantime, history pages on Wikipedia are suffer enormously from bias. Last year my password was even broken, I complained (see may Talk page), no ADMINISTRATOR ever intervened (why should they when they were probably involved in this) and I stopped being interested for editing during about a year. This gang is acting again. I find it very patriotic and quite normal from their point of view, but damaging for Wikipedia. I THINK THAT THE OTHER USERS SHOULD KNOW THIS BEFORE TAKING PART ON THESE PAGES.Draganparis (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be misused for political discussions! It is obvious, that the so called 'name-dispute' between the State of Macedonia i.e. Republic of Macedonia or FYROM and the Hellenic Republic influences the above discussions and disputes. However, it should not be stated that Alexander the Great was a 'greek basileus', he was a 'basileus' from the Argead dynasty, which representative Alexander I Philhellen claimed greek origin to participate on the Olympic games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkrueg 1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Named References

Since named references are used (and this is necessary due to so many repetitions), I have grouped all named references from section 1 inside the reflist (per Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references). I think maintenance and look-up is much easier this way (I put them alphabetically, grouped by letters), as when adding citations it used to be a painful task to search for duplicates and similar problems. In this process I also found 3 minor errors which convinced me that going through with this is useful (btw, the errors consisted in using the same name but referring to different pages, and this bug was ignored by the software: apparently, if a named reference is redefined, only one occurrence is listed, and all citations are linked to that).

Since not everyone might agree (and although somewhat automated, the task is not trivial, since I am checking for mistakes too), I only did section 1 for now; so if there is any objection please revert and explain here. To clarify: I did not change the style or usage of anything, we just have a complete list now in the "references" section. Antipastor (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now complete. Single unnamed citations were left in the text (more convenient). Antipastor (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How is possible to say Alexander the Great was "Greek" king...when it is historically known he was not Greek and he didn't speak Greek language with his officers. Even in Greek archives about him it is said he spoke a "barbarian" language, which probably was Illyrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.103.5 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Podcast as external link

This source is not just a link to an author and historians' website. It leads to a 1 hour podcast discussion, aired in the UK, with three boni fide historians. I think it is at least at important as some of the other links, such as art exhibits and discussions as to his sexuality, etc., therefore I must respectfully disagree. Why do you not at least listen to the podcast before making an opinion? Mugginsx (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The quality of Paul Doherty's podcast is not the key issue. There are many, many websites as well as TV and radio broadcasts discussing this topic and the External links section has to meet WP:NOTDIRECTORY. In this case as the podcast does not represent a unique resource for the article it appears to fail this requirement as well as WP:ELNO. If you believe the podcast illustrates a particular unsourced issue in the article it may be relevant to use it as an in-line footnote, however I would think that any point the historians in question make in a podcast they make in a more comprehensive and reliable manner in their books and publications. I take your point about art exhibits etc. and have trimmed the external links accordingly for similar reasons.—Ash (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, though I still respectfully disagree. It is a productive and detailed podcast and it does, in my opinion, represent some differing opinions not represented in the main article. If, as I think you were suggesting, I were to add the "links" to all of the historians involved, that would add only more external links. Is that not one of the things you are trying to avoid, or have I misunderstood? I would again ask you to listen to the podcast before you take such drastic action. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested an in-line footnote (if anything) rather than more potentially superfluous or tangential external links. I can glance at Google Scholar to decide if a published book is a worthwhile reliable source, I have no obvious way of assessing the podcast in question but listening to the beginning of it, phrases like "the East-West clash" seem rather trite (and certainly would be picked up in an undergraduate essay) and a loose discussion or chat between academics such as this makes for a poor source when excellent reliable sources are available. No other reliable sources have reviewed this podcast as a unique resource.—Ash (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take your suggestion as to a in-line footnote although I have not found anything specific in Wiki as to how or where that is accomplished. I would, however, note, that since the discussion is made by PhD's, such as Dr. Paul Doherty and others, who may also be authors, it is unfair for you to make a "snap" judgment on a podcast that you did not listen to further that you characterized, based upon a "brief description" of the broadcast, rather than the "broadcast" itself. As to your reference to Google Scholar, this is not about anyone's book but a serious discussion by highly-qualified scholars on the life of Alexander the Great Mugginsx (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mugginsx, I had removed the link after listening to a good part of it. I also agree with Ash, and I think this podcast is not an essential resource, and the "burden of proof" for external links in wikipedia falls with those who want to add them, so this judgement is not unfair. The other issue I had, was that the link was pointing to the homepage of a novelist where he advertises his books about various topics, mostly Templars, but also Alexander etc, and one had to follow another link and search for the podcast (according to the instructions); even if not intended, this seemed spammy to me. Regards. Antipastor (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) General note, how to add footnotes is covered by the guidance of wp:FN. BTW having a PhD is no way a guarantee that a person has anything unique or sensible to say in a podcast (or in any other media); I believe many Wikipedians who happen to have doctorates themselves would agree with me...—Ash (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I only used the authors' website because the BBC link was expired and one would have to purchase a copy to hear it. Since scholars on the subject have not given their opinion, we do not know what they would say. I would make an observation however, that some of the material in this article, such as the "Description of Alexander" and other paragraphs, seem to me to be far less informative and or interesting, and their expertise certainly not on the same level as the historians. However, that being said, I will defer to your collective experience, though I will retain my personal opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but for this reason the linking was suboptimal (and maybe also the copyright of the mp3 is unclear). Of course you are welcome to contribute to the article, and improve some sections such as the one you cited. Cheers. Antipastor (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

King Menander

The link for Menander seems to go to Menander, the writer of New Comedy in Athens 343 - 292 BC rather than to King Menander of Greek India 155 - 130 BC. I wish there was a proper linkup between the history of Bacria and of Greece and we can then see the early cross-currents between Buddhism and the 'West'. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good observation, the link for Menander is fixed now a least. Antipastor (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For the Millionth Time

I know that we will again and again have to answer to the same claims. As we have discussed in so many instances in this and other more relevant articles, academic consensus regards the ancient Macedonians as Greek. Out of a peculiar respect to the theories of certain scholars, we have not described Macedon as a Greek kingdom, although we could and have only called Alexander as Greek, since even the alternative theories agree that Alexander and the Argeads have always self identified as Greeks and were regarded as that. The controversy lies in the 5% of scholars proposing that the Macedonians were not a Greek tribe but something else (independent tribe/Illyrians/Thracians etc). Yet the Argead dynasty has even in these theories been regarded as Greeks ruling over barbarians (apart from even less supported conspiracy theories as to how they conspired since the 7th century BC to persuade the Greeks of their Greek origin). Anyways, academic consensus exists and these theories are given in their respective articles. It is at least absurd to write of a historical persona that "he claimed he was Greek"!!!! GK1973 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment seams to contain an ethnically based racist argument and should be removed. The affirmations advanced in the comment are also wrong. The facts are contrary to what is claimed. There is an agreement that the Macedonians spoke a language incomprehensible to the Hellenes (either because this was a remote dialect or because this was a completely different language – this is not known); there is also agreement that Hellenes regarded Argeads as barbarians, in spite of the claims of the Alexander I and Alexander III to Hellenic origins. And there is a full agreement that the Macedonians expressed always extreme nationalism, usurpation of almost all power in the empire(s), and were in PERMANENT conflict with all Hellenic tribes. They lived separated by administrative borders ever since antiquity up to the 20th century!!! Only period of relative calmness in a same state was during Alexander’s 13 years reign – this was over 2.300 years ago. Extending this rivalry today onto probably predominantly Slavic tribes living for 1400 years in the geographically determined “Macedonia” is just outrageous. And now that some people bring "for the milionth time" this discussion on history pages par excellence – is a shame.Draganparis (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Draganparis, although I admire your fervor, I have to tell you that your arguments and assumptions are fully mistaken as far as established history and archaeology are concerned. Should you feel the need to disprove what is written in the article, you should bring on the quotations and bibliography to back your claims and then show that you are not just citing the work of a minorty of scholars which exists and is referred to in the proper articles.

- There is NO agreement that the Macedonian language was not understood by the Greeks. On the contrary there is absolutely NO ancient reference to any Greek not understanding the language of the Macedonians whereas we have multiple references to the fact that they did indeed understand it. This also reflects in the official linguistic categorization of the Macedonian language which falls under the Hellenic family of languages.

- There is no agreement that the Greeks regarded the Argeads as barbarians. On the contrary, the huge bulk of historians maintains that the general view of the Greeks regarding the Macedonians (and other border Greek tribes) was that they were Greeks with a barbarian-like attitude. In the thousands of times that the name "Argeads" crops up in ancient (and medieval) literature there is no instance of anyone relating it with barbarism, although without mentioning the Argead descendance we have 3 instances of a Macedonian barbarism, all in polemical texts. On the other hand we have more evidence as to the barbarism of the Athenians and this not only in polemical texts but in ancient Greek accepted history (see Herodot on that for example). Anyways, regardless what you feel, the history of the Argeads was never attacked by any Greek, Roman or any other ancient or medieval scholar and is attacked only by a handful of semi modern scholars like Borza and Badian.

- There is absolutely NO agreement on what you call extreme nationalism or this permanent conflict you mention either. On the contrary, again reality is vastly different. You are talking of extreme nationalism when you yourself acknowledge that at least the Argeads (actually all Macedonians) claimed to be Hellenes/Greeks! Where is this extreme nationalism displayed? In the fact that according to even the proponents of their non-Greekness they had fully or partially adopted the Greek language, religion, customs and education by the time of Archelaus and certainly fully by the time of Alexander? In the fact that they propagated the Greek language and customs on their empires? This argument is too weak even according to your own claims.

- What permanent conflict are you talking about? Alexander I claimed to be a Greek when he sent away the Persian emissaries, he warned the Greek Generals at Plataea, the Macedonians were allies of the Spartans long before Philip II, who led the Amphictyons in their Sacred Wars long before Cheronea... What permanent conflict are you talking about and on what grounds?

- How dare you talk about the Macedonians having the same borders from antiquity to the 20th century in a desperate effort to show continuity? What borders? What Macedonia? Most of what you call Macedonia so that you can name your state after it was not Macedonia before the 19th century and certainly not during any ancient Macedonian's king reign up to Perseus! Even Borza and Badian did NOT dare claim such an unacademic opinion! Please, dear Draganparis, we are not naive dabblers here.

- Who extends what rivalry unto what Slavs here? Some of your arguments are too vague to understand. No one here sees things from any nationalistic perspective although you surely look like you want to. Stop attacking "Greeks", "Hellenes" or any piece of history you do not agree with and start contributing to a higher standard, with something apart from your authority to back your claims. We have included all theories in their respective articles, it is you who seem to feel an urge to dispute established history and archaeology.

GK1973 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

These above are all unsubstantiated arguments and the text is exploding from the political flavor. Should be removed, please.

But just briefly (what is maintained and my response):

1. There is NO agreement that the Macedonian language was not understood by the Greeks.

O, yes, Arrian, Rufus, and Diodorus give number of situations of the need for the translations and problems of language (Philotas dispute for example and number of others). Macedonina language is NOT classified, since there is not evidence to classify that language. The list of Macedonian glosses given by Kalleris (you will find that referenc, I do not doubt) is problematic because the words have already been hellenised; Robert Beekes a famous linguist says that it could be of Hellenic group. Plutarch (Antonie, 27, 197) praises Cleopatra for speaking also Macedonian. He did not mean Greek, or what do you think? Of course it would be very unusual that the Macedonian language was not related to the Hellenic language group. In fact our indo-European language are all so close, so this is just a matter of degree. The ancient Macedonian was incomprehensive for the Athenians, this is claimed by all 5 secondary Alexander’s biographical sources.

2. There is no agreement that the Greeks regarded the Argeads as barbarians.

O, yes, Demosthenes illustrates this; not participation to the Olympics, etc. You know the citations of course, Herodotus first and then the other sources. Certainly, for the Hellenes barbarous are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language, and this brings us back to the first argument.

3. There is absolutely NO agreement on what you call extreme nationalism or this permanent conflict you mention either.

O, yes. 90% of Alexander’s generals, all diadochi (almost all), political power, military power, civil governments, finances, all was in the hands of Macedonians; Ptolemys even married incestuously to keep the dynasty and the “nation” clean.

4. What permanent conflict are you talking about?

Well, I think just reading simplified history books gives the answer. Macedonia and Hellenic city-states were in permanent conflict about the territories that Macedonian acquired during the 5th and 4th centuries. Permanent. After Alexander, well Aristotle – even a Hellene by himself - had a problem. And the problems continued.

5. How dare you talk about the Macedonians having the same borders from antiquity to the :::20th century in a desperate effort to show continuity?

Please mind you style. I just say that the Hellenes and the Macedonians were always living in the separate territories, most of the time separated by administrative borders, and this is true – up to the 20th century. The Hellenes were subdued by the Macedonians, by the Romans, were taking part in the Eastern Roman Empire and subdued by the Ottomans. And all that time we have either separate kingdoms or states, or themas, provinces, vilayet etc: this means administrative borders between territories were PERMANENT.

6. Who extends what rivalry unto what Slavs here? Some of your arguments are too vague to understand.

If you do not understand, please do not hate (!!!) without reason. If Slavs or a mixed population has been living for over 14 centuries on a section of the ancient Macedonian territory – what problem does this make? If we would accept racial theories then the argument about the Slave “Macedonians” may be opened. Before this, and I hope the racial approach has to stay away from the discussion, we may discuss history. But racial approaches do not have place here.

So my conclusion is that racist approaches should NOT be permitted on these pages, and that on the history pages unrelated political discussions are to be avoided. And to have this discussion here - is a shame. I hope some editor will move it to some more appropriate place (like "Racist discourses" or similar, and clean these pages).Draganparis (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

- Please... Draganparis, do NOT just state names as if I have to take your word for it. I have studied ancient and medieval literature far too extensively to be swept into such a hollow argumentation. You think that by naming authors you obviously never read yourself you can give credence to what? Where does Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, Polybius, Polyaenus, Herodot, Thucydides, Strabo, Pausanias or any other ancient OR medieval author ever state that there was even ONE instance of Macedonians speaking and Greeks NOT understanding? Maybe in the writings of any Romans? Does Rufus say so? Livy? Caesar? Anyone? You are talking about hints you choose to understand in a certain manner. Didn't Arrian write that Philotas chose to not speak Macedonian because the people present would BETTER understand if he spoke in Attic? Doesn't Arrian describe in his Indici how the Macedonians started weeping from happiness when they again heard Greek and saw a Greek garment? Does Curtius anywhere state that there was any Greek NOT understanding the Macedonian language? Have you read Aeschynes to see what language was spoken in Macedonia and how all ambassadors conversed even with the servants? Doesn't Arrian give instants when Greeks read the personal letters of Alexander to Parmenio or Antipatros? Did they write to each other in a language that was not their own? Didn't the Romans address the Macedonians in Greek? Didn't Polybius clearly state that the Macedonians and the Aetolians are peoples of the same speech? Is there any mention of any translators? We have mentions for translators of MACEDONIANS towards Illyrian and Persian... Any mention that they needed any translator to converse with Greeks? How about the word "barbarian"? Does any of these mention it even ONCE in relation with any Macedonian (scolding of Alexander's adopting the barbaric ways of the Persians excluded, of course easily identified)? Search as much as you want, you will never find ONE INSTANCE of Macedonians not understanding Greek or vice versa. As for the Macedonian words we "know" of, they are words which are given in a Greek to Greek Byzantine dictionary (Dictionary of peculiar words) and are purely Greek in their greatest majority. Yet we know of many more words and phrases given in ancient works, all pure Greek in form and use. And we are talking only about those words which are identified as purely Macedonian, which means different from standard Greek as is the case in any dialect. The same applied to all other Greek dialects, which all had their peculiarities. You also seem to be lost in translation or maybe choose to be so, since you select to translate Greek as suits your arguments (or maybe you are taking the said translation for granted...). Makedonisti is used in Greek literature in the same manner as Laconisti, Atticisti, Ionisti etc. The word "glotta" can mean dialect as much as it can mean language. You have to study the texts yourself and find even ONE INSTANCE of any Greek not understanding a Macedonian, as is the case with all other "alloglossous" "people of a different language"... Please... fishing arguments out of certain sites is not the way. I do not want to engage in a source war, since we have gone this way a million times. Just give me ONE INSTANCE of a Macedconian not understanding Greek or vice versa (not something you would consider a hint but a clear example). Give me one and I will agree with you. If I give you 10 will you agree with me?

Plus, officially the Macedonian language is NOT RELATED to the Hellenic group... It BELONGS to the Hellenic group. The other IE languages do not.

- Demosthenes is scolded even by Greek writers for his slanders. Demostenes' words are as I already mentioned "polemic" and so are not taken seriously by any scholar, Borza and Badian included. He attacks Philip and wants to incite hatred against him. The same applies to Demades. Have you ever heard of Aeschynes? Demosthenes' opponent in Athens? Just read how he related his experiences in Philip's court and of course he also accuses Demosthenes of being a barbarian (his mother was Scythian). If this is your only argument then you should start reconsidering. As for the Olympic Games, you obviously got it all wrong... Starting with the fact that there is no mentioning of Alexander I to have been the first Macedonian to have taken part in the Olympics, what Herodot clearly says is that Alexander I was a Greek and that the Hellanodicae themselves established it when accused of not being one. He also says that the Athenians were hellenized by the Macedonians, before which they were barbarians (or is selective reading what you propose)...

As for what is barbarous, then I guess that Demosthenes spoke before the Athenians in Scythian, since as I have already mentioned he was called a barbarian... And of course the same applies to the Aetolians, the Spartans, the Samothracians etc etc etc who are also called barbarians, actually more often than the Macedonians. No, my friend. A "barbarian" was one who belongs to a race which is not Greek but use was also made to verbally attack a person or "nation". Your argument would be valid, if the Macedonians were called barbarians as often (even 1/50th of the times) the Persians, the Romans, the Thracians, the Illyrians or the Gauls were called such.

- Of course the fact that the Macedconian elite inherited the state formed by Alexander III should not strike you as peculiar. Of course they relied heavily on other Greeks as generals, officers, administrators etc, but of course these were Macedonian kingdoms. Did the Athenians ever fight under a "foreign" Greek general if not part of an alliance as did the Macedonians under Eumenes the Cardian? Did the Spartans? What does this have to do with extreme nationalism? Do you know how many non Macedonian Greeks are called Macedonians by Arrian because they hail from Amphipolis? Do you know how many Companions were non Macedonians? Alexander's chief admiral Nearchus was not a Macedonian... Just read about the commanders of Ptolemy and Antiochus at Raphia to see how much nationalism was involved in the selection of their generals... You are talking about a "nation" (in the ancient sense of the word) which deeply self identified as Greek, whose right to that you deny. You are talking about a "nation" which produced witers, poets, sculptors, as "nationalistic" and "anti-Greek" as to only write in Greek and strongly accept their Greek traditions. Even the proponents of the non-Greekness of the Macedonians would not suggest that the Macedonians were extreme nationalists and haters of Greece. They instead make an effort to justify why everything Macedonian we have excavated in Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt or even in your country is Greek in nature and full of Greek inscriptions, from coins to pottery, from royal edicts to simple tombstones by stressing the "admiration" the Macedonians held for everything Greek...

- And of course what does what you say have to do with your claim that they were in a state of constant war against the "Greeks"? So, according to your opinion this happens from the 5th century BC, 3-400 years AFTER the formation of the Macedonian state? What about the 5th century? What war against the Greeks did the Macedonians willfully engage in? Do you mean the Persian Wars, when they were Persian vassals, when their regent said to the Persian emissaries that he was "a Greek prince"? What attack did the Macedonians make against Greeks in the 5th century? Are you talking about Philip (actually mid 4th entury)? Have you even read his exploits? Wasn't he an Amphictyon (and thus a Greek/Hellen)? Didn't he fight alongside the Amphictyonic alliance in the Sacred Wars? Have you ever read who fought WITH HIM at Chaeronea against the Athenians and the Thebans? Macedonian Hegemony was established as was Lacedaemonian, Athenian and Theban before that. Who fought with Antigonus in Sellasia against the Lacedaemonians? Was Philopoemen a Macedonian? What about the Macedonian allies the Romans had in Magnesia against Antiochus the Great? Do you know that the Romans gave independence to the Macedonian tribe of Orestes because they had helped them in the wars against Macedonia? And what about Aristoteles, Alexander's tutor who said to him to treat the Greeks as Greeks and the barbarians as slaves? Did he tell him to treat Macedonians as slaves according to your rationale? You are obviously not well versed in ancient history or you would not have made these funny claims.

- I am very careful with my style and my words. You just say that you don't really know where the Macedonians lived or where the other Greeks lived. Do you know where lie the Macedonian lands of the Argeads?? Do you know that in the area they first conquered lived Greeks who had migrated there from Crete? What administrative borders are you talking about? Their borders to Thessaly were as marked as that of Athens towards Corinth or Boeotea. What borders were there during the Roman, Byzantine or Ottoman times? What are you talking about? Macedonia was a regional toponyme whose boundaries shifted from century to century, for centuries being in THRACE!!! The Ottomans did not even have a Macedonian region. They had villayets among which the villayet of Thessaloniki. And of course, up to the 20th century, the majority of the population of the coastal regions of both Macedonia and Thrace are universally described and referred to as Greeks as north as the Danube and as East as Cappadocia. And all of this makes no sense, for you clearly cannot be trying to connect what you call Macedonia today (region or country) with ancient Macedonia, which was a small region south of your borders.

- I do not "hate"! I just do not understand what your point is. So what if Slavs live in the region for 14 hundred years? We are not talking about any right of the modernday citizens of the Republic of Macedonia to use or not use the name "Macedonia". For this you need to subscribe to some forum about this issue. It is irrelevant with this article or any other article having to do with history and archaeology and not with theories, nationalist disputes etc.

- What racist approach?????? There is no racism involved in this article apart from you seeing it as a Holy Grail to get rid of the established scientific consensus that Alexander (and I am not talking about the ancient Macedonians since they have their own article) was called, self identified, acknowledged and generally considered a Greek. Your point of view is given in the appropriate articles and NOT deliberately hidden or something. Should we write that Julius Caesar "claimed" he was Roman? I am sure that we could easily call him a Troyan...

Anyways... as I said I much admire your fervor, but you have to understand that here we are occupied with science and not with addressing the individual problems and fears of editors or readers. You have to learn to abide by established science even if you do not agree with its views. Maybe, after 20-30 years new evidence will shift the academic view towards your POV, maybe it will be discarded for good. I really do not know, the future will show. But until then, study your facts and stop being as vague in your argumentation or you run the risk of being labeled a picturesque fanatic. I am sure you have much to offer.

Now I would prefer to not drag this further. The topic is anyways about Alexander and NOT about the Macedonians. Your points have been addressed and given publicity in the appropriate articles. GK1973 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded at your talk page. Your answer is so disapointing that it just does not make any more sense to continue here.Draganparis (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to bring this discussion back here again.

I recomend that we have to ignore the interventions of GK1973, unfortunately. That person shows inconsistency and lack of the desire to respect fairness and correctness (illustrated in recent disputes with me here, discussion pages on Saints Cyril and Methodius and on his talk page – even hiding embarrassing discussion!?) which an editor of Wikipedia must possess. That person has been insulting me developing ungrounded nationalistic accusation, introducing ethnocentric arguments or accusations. In argumentation that person was offering the affirmations supported only by bare names of numbers of authors of the referent works, without EVER giving a correct complete reference and citation. I was patiently trying to show how to give the citation, he/she sistematicaly ignore all of this. I will give below one example of argumentation about Philotas Story, just as example of correct way of presenting an argument. Giving full reference, name, work, page in the work, and citing exact text, with eventual personal interpretation, is necessary condition for correct argument development and decent management of the pages in Wikipedia. GK 1973 has not offered a single reference respecting these rules and was dumping the pages with emotionally charged unsupported quarrelling arguments (see for example above, or even higher, in "Alexander III Macedonian - terminology - please). No single corrects reference and mouth full of insults! Therefore I propose to ignore the interventions of GK1973 for the time being and hope that he/she would accept the rules which are respected on these pages and would offer us, in the future, valuable opinions that these pages desperately need.Draganparis (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

An example of argumentation.

As promised, here are Latin and English versions of Rufus, the sections that deal with Philotas Problem. This may as well help some Hellenist.

Please tell me now how do you interpret the text below. I think that there is no doubt that Macedonian and Greek speakers could not understand each other at all and needed interpreters. (But, as it is often the case, I could be wrong.) Indeed, the readers will be now able to decide.Draganparis (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The History of Alexander by Curtius Rufus

Latin (from http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/curtius/curtius6.shtml)

6.9.35 and 36 Tum Philotas: "Praeter Macedonas", inquit, "plerique adsunt, quos facilius quae dicam percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus qua tu egisti, non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intellegi posset a pluribus." Tum rex: "Ecquid videtis, adeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan taedere? solus quippe fastidit eum discere. Sed dicat sane, utcumque ei cordi est, dum memineritis aeque illum a nostro more quam a sermone abhorrere." Atque ita contione excessit.

6.10.23 (Philotas, complainin abou charges made agenst him.) Mihi quidem obicitur quod societatem patrii sermonis asperner, quod Macedonum mores fastidiam: sic ego imperio, quod dedignor, immineo. Iam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit: tum victoribus quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.

6.11.4 (Bolon’s accusations of Philotas) Ludibrio ei fuisse rusticos homines Phrygasque et Paphlagonas appellatos, qui non erubesceret, Macedo natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire.

Now from a book that I have, which has Latin original version that is slightly different from one from the Internet (!?), and French translation. Sorry, I just can not type also the French translation. If you want to have it - vous pouvez me demander et je veux vous le recopier avec plaisir. The reference is: Quinte-Curce, De la vie et des actions d’Alexandre le Grand, de la traduction de monsieur de Vaugalas, avec le supplemants de Jean Freinshemius sur Quinte- Cource. Traduits par fcu Monsieur du RYER. Tome second. A Lille, 1712.

Latin (original) version

6.9.35 and 36 Tum Philotas: praeter Macedonas, inquit, plerique adsunt, quos facilius, quae dicam, percepturos arbitror, si eadem lingua fuero usus, qua tu egisti: non ob aliud, credo, quam ut oratio tua intelligi posset a pluribus. Tum rex: ecquid videtis, odeo etiam sermonis patrii Philotan teneri? solus quippe fastidit eum dicere. Sed dicat sane, utcumque cordi est, dum memineritis, aeque illum a nostro more, atqe sermone abhorrere. Atque ita conciene excessit.

6.10.23 Mihi quidem objicitur, quod societatem patrii sermonis asperner; quod Macedonum mores fastidiam; sic ego imperio, quod dedignor, immineo? Jam pridem nativus ille sermo commercio aliarum gentium exolevit; tum victoribus quam victis peregrina lingua discenda est.

6.11.4 Ludibrio ei fuisse rusticos hominess, Phrygasque & Paphlagonas appellatos; qui non erubesceret, Macedo natus, homines linguae suae per interpretem audire.

English translation. I retyped it from my copy of the book (John Yardley’s translation , 1984 of the History of Alexander, Penguin Books 2004.). But you can find it also on Google books too.

6.9. [35]“besides the Macedonians”, replied Philotas, “there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose. I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you.” [36] Then the king said: “Do you see how offensive Philotas finds even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases – only remember that he is as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language.” So saying, Alexander left the meeting.

6.10. [23] “One charge made against me is that I disdain to communicate in my native language, that I have no respect for Macedonian custom (which means I have designs on an empire I despise!). That native language of ours has long been rendered obsolete through our dealings with other nations, and conquerors and conquered alike must learn a foreign tongue.

6.11. [4] Philotas had ridiculed man from the country, he continued, calling them Phrygians an Paphlagonians, -this from a man who Macedonian born, was not ashamed to use an interpreter to listen to man who spoke his own language.Draganparis (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

@Draganparis - Seems to me that you got intellectually clobbered by GK1973 (I was quite impressed by his comments, even if you chose to belittle them), and the best you can do is call him names and find carefully-selected "evidence" in ancient sources to support your contentions. Read GK's comments again please; he writes specifically about the problems with the kinds of evidence you rely on. For instance, to distinguish between the language spoken by Macedonians and that spoken by some other Greek is not the same as to say that Macedonian is not a Greek language. Does your excerpt say that Macedonian is not a Greek language? NO. But that's what you're trying to prove.

The Greeks had all kinds of dialects: Aeloic, Doric, and many others. I'm sure they sometimes had challenges understanding each other, and I know they sometimes took pot-shots at each other's local cultures during times of heated debate. Heck, the modern Italians have a bunch of dialects, and it can be hard for them to understand each other sometimes! But you are trying to take the human nature out of the human, as though it is possible that people skew things for personal interest today but not in the past! (Oh, how that quote from Demosthenes comes up over and over again!).

At the end of the day, we can set all this aside, and safely conclude a couple of things: (a) the Macedonians considered themselves Greek, (b) the Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek, (c) the only traces of a Macedonian language that have ever been found are soundly Greek, (d) the very names of the Macedonians were Greek.

Now, we can selectively isolate little bits of "counter-evidence" till the end of time, but that doesn't get us anywhere.

The problem is, you are so engrossed in your particular national story that you can't see what's right in front of you....130.15.114.45 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

These comments made by an IP are not at all becoming, even if they do praise me. Should you make a point regarding any Wikipedian, you should at least have the ettiquette to sign your posts, even by a Wikipedian nickname. GK1973 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that the languages differed very much, without saying what language groups there were. The citations above prove this. The language probably was from a Greek group of languages – but I say this with reserve, of course. Also, I said that AT THAT TIME, Macedonians did not considered them to be Greek!!!! (They certainly become indistigushible from the Greeks.)The citation below shows this. Is this so hard to understand? Is this a problem of knowledge only? Here is my citation again:

“The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbors.” (Hammond NGL: A history of Greece, to 322 B.C., third edition, 1986, p. 534-535; Claredon Press, Oxford.).

Dear GK1973, after the argumentation with me becoming an expert, you can certainly see now that such a comment of the Anonymus is absolutely empty. Why don't you say so? Instead you are moralizing about his name? Which is just formal objection. Don't you see that such arguments do not decently represent magnificent Greek cultural heritage?Draganparis (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

???? I really do not understand what you are saying. Dude.. you need to improve you English... GK1973 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is just one incomplete sentence in my text above: "They certainly become indistinguishable from the Greeks.", which should have been: "With Hellenization Macedonians certainly become indistinguishable from the Greeks." But the rest of the above message you understood too well. The content of the message was so embarrassing that you decided to declare that you did not understand it!

“The Macedonians in general did not consider themselves Greeks, nor were they considered Greeks by their neighbors.” (Hammond NGL: A history of Greece, to 322 B.C., third edition, 1986, p. 534-535; Claredon Press, Oxford.).

This is the second time that you ignore Hammond - when it does not suit you, so there it is again!Draganparis (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes.. it was embarassing... embarassing enough to have ever deigned to think you might have some quality in you... I just reprimanded an IP for making comments against you and you still keep bombarding me with hollow, unschooled, already answered questions, while already having denied to comment on any of my points... Sad... really...

[1] , [2] , [3] , [4].

Here is the history of our discussion, since you first thought it appropriate to indulge me some answers... Your copy pasted questions from the nationalistic sites, my answers to them, your comments on my answers plus your admittance of not anting to answer any of my points and the answer to your "Hammond case" which directed you to a paper of Hammond in JSTOR, which you should have access to being "an academian" and staff... If you didn't have access, you could tell me so.... I do not expect anyone to have the patience or willingness to read through all these pages, but any other proper answer I could give to your claims would be characterized uncivil. Whoever has the slightest doubt as to my or your person, can always take a look...GK1973 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

All is just fine. Just fine. Nobody doubts.Draganparis (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Leonidas

Leonidas was one of Alexanders first teachers. Leonidas was Olympias's uncle. He struggled to control the defiant boy. Phillip hired him to train the young in math, archery, and horseman ship. He was very stern and searched Alexanders things to insure that Olympias had not smuggled any luxuries to her some when he was young. He was later replaced By Aristotle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.146.163 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I really dont think this is right but i tryed.

• This article arleady mentions Leonidas, and he has an article Leonidas of Epirus. He may have been an uncle, but I imagine that all older male relatives are "uncle". What is the source of the details you mention? Abductive (reasoning) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Natural causes

This text (The most probable cause of Alexanders death is however, the result of overdosing on medicine made from Hellebore, deadly in large doses. The very few things we do know about his death, can today be explained only with accidental hellebore-poisoning. [138][139]) is listed under possible naturally-caused death scenarios for Alexander.

Accidental poisoning is neither natural nor the most probable cause for his death. I hope someone will edit this down or out.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.142.53 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Roxana

I don't want to edit this myself as this is not my area of expertise but the article seems to use (at least) two forms of the name, Roxana and Roxanne. Is this intentional? Akerbeltz (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

Name of Alexander the Great in Hieroglyphs (written from right to left), circa 330 BCE, Egypt. Louvre Museum.

Name of Alexander the Great in Hieroglyphs. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is he labeled as a Greek?

Wasnt he an ethnic Macedonian? Why is he always refered to a a Greek king even on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.65.83 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the exhaustive discussions on this page and in the archives. Perhaps you can find a way to resolve this? Fconaway (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there have been such "exhaustive discussions", don't you think it is a little premature to label Alexander as Greek then? I found this very selfish and likely to be ethnocentrically motivated. It is widely understood that Alexander was indeed Macedonian. Now, to argue that his being Macedonian infers that he was Greek is a separate issue and can be argued. My opinion is that Macedonian is not Greek at all, but again, that could be argued. However, to simply state that he is Greek is incorrect on a number of different grounds, and this part needs to be changed.Bishopx313 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been at the centre of much debate here. But general academic consensus is the Alexander the Great was Greek. Kyriakos (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Picture on the right of the article

I am quite displeased at the depiction of the 'Greatest Warrior' on the face of the earth.., On a mosaic tile effect.., i would rather refer on of the best depictions like this.., http://images.epilogue.net/users/kizalon/aleksander_the_great_08.jpg --Nikhil 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Jackson 12:41 AM 08 April 10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immanuel52002 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Respecting ones self-determination

One should refrain from using terms which another group finds offensive. Ethnic groups from the Republic of Macedonia would like to be referred to as only Macedonians and not FYROM,s or FYROMIANS or any other derogatory term. Ethnic Macedonians find this hurtful and offensive. The use of FYROM has been casually used multiple times throughout this page. It's a human beings right to self-determination and people of the Republic of Macedonia would not like their country to be referred to as FYROM and their ethnicity as FYROMIAN. The word slavs, Skopjians, Skopje and Slavophone is always very offensive towards ethnic Macedonian. Ethnic Macedonians would not like to be called those terms. As a ethnic Macedonian myself I request my human rights to be protected and to be upheld on this page. I request the editor of this article and Wikipedia to delete any terms that may cause offense to the ethnic Macedonians as stated above.

This bar located at the top of the discussion page in which was created by the editor uses the term FYROM and that is offensive for ethnic Macedonians. The phrase is as follows. Nationality of Alexander If you are editing this page to contest the nationality of Alexander, then please check first the archives for past discussions. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. Remember to use reliable sources for your claims. Please remember that this is an article about ancient times and not about modern times, so discussions about FYROM are off-topic here.

One has the right to free speech but a sensitive issue as self-determination must be respected. Every country, state or province has its own laws they must be upheld. If one group request themselves to be called what they like they must be called so by others. There shall be no consequences or punishment for expressing someone's feelings of self-determination on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.81.222 (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your "self determination" conflicts with the real Macedonian ancient tribal and regional names of the Greeks. It is not proper for you as the identity thief, to voice out rights like "self determination" so you can keep the victims name. Do you have no shame, or respect for the victims of your identity theft? 148.87.19.206 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Filtering in the discussion board

There are Ancient Greek writings in Macedonia and there is proof of Ancient Greek being spoken by the Ancient Macedonians. Languages are constantly evolving and changing. Some go extict while others remain alive. If you tried to prove the ethnicity of someone by solely language, it is simplistic by all means. Language is ever so changing and never remains the same. To compare Ancient Greek language to modern Greek, you can see there are many differences. Language is only one variable of many that defines a culture. If you want to prove the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians with ancient greek fragments found in the region, you must be an expert on cultures. Brazilians speak Portuguese, the rest of the majority of South America speaks Spanish. Haiti speaks French. Some countries in Africa speak French or Spanish. Most of Eastern Europe speaks a slavic langueses, even though extict languages once existed there. Even try to prove the Greekness of a third generation Greek living in Canada, Australia or the USA who now doesn't know the Greek langauge but only knows how to speak English and write English. Does that make the person a English by origin because of their langauge? Language alone does not define a ethnicity and King Phillip should not be listed as being Greek when there isn't enough evidence. Language is nothing more than a means of communication. If a Brazilian speaks Portuguese as their first language and they are called Brazilian. How is it that the Ancient Macedonians are considered Ancient Greek by evidence of some fragments of Ancient Greek tablets found in the region and coins administered by Macedonian Kings using Greek writings conclude they are Greek. Its so absurd to say that the majority of the world is English by origin because they know the international language of the modern world. It's also absurd to say that the Native Americans are English because they use currency that has English. The way English had become the prominent way of communication, is the same way the Ancient Greek Language took control of the old world. If the majority of the world uses a language, you adapt and learn the language. It's that simple. So what Alexander the Great spoke Greek, does that make him Greek? You speak English, does that make you English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.116.73 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1) I noticed this discussion being deleted on March 25, 2010. It was deleted because it was labeled as being pointless.

2) We need to meet half way when it comes to uncertainty about an issue. Address the issue openly. Alexander the Great could be Greek or non-Greek. Every single historian does not believe he was greek by blood. Some believe he was non-Greek. These discussion will continue until a compromise is made.

3) We need an open discussion about how to label the ethnicity of Alexander the Great. There are whole textbooks out there trying to prove his Greekness or non-Greekness. If there is entire textbooks written to prove his ethnicity, there is clearly uncertainty about his ethnicity.

There are several points that show in favour of Alexander and as a matter of fact the entire Argead Dynasty being of Greek origin. The fact that they spoke Greek is one, the fact that they were allowed to participatein the Olympic Games which was a strictly Greek event and the fact that Alexander's ancestor Alexander I called himself a Greek in 479 BC. This is just to say a few. Overall, general academic consensus agreees that Alexander the Great was of Greek origin. Kyriakos (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kiro_Gligorov I think thats a valid reminder of the older generation of Skopje Melathron (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)