Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Meaning of the name

As the meaning of the name Philip is in the page of Alexander's father (friend+horse = φίλος+άλογο=φίλιππος)shouldn't here be Αλέξανδρος from άλεξ+ανδρός=αλέξανδρος which means protector+man???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.193.141 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not exceptionally important, but we could add it, eg as a footnote. Antipastor (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Done. Antipastor (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the name Αλέξανδρος comes from ancient Greek Αλέξω + Άνδρας (alexo + andras). Αλέξω as a verb means to protect/shield/block/guard and it is used in modern Greek in composite words such as Αλεξικέραυνο (αλέξω + κεραυνός) = Lightning rod, αλεξίσφαιρο (αλέξω + σφαίρα) = bullet proof item. Άνδρας (andras) means man, thus Αλέξανδρος means the protector/guardian of man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.158.146.164 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The etymology of "Alexander" is VERY important (gives a very sound answer to the flame about his nationality). Some people do their best to hide it and they constantly removing it from this article.147.102.160.27 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really of big importance here and, anyway, there is an article Alexander about the name and its etymology. A Macedonian (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander the Great New Research-Are His Mummified Remains in Gortynia-Arkadia, Greece?

In 2008, a theory proposed by Classicist, Hellenic historian and researcher Christos A. Mergoupis, states that the mummified remains of Alexander the Great (not his actual tomb), may in fact be located in Gortynia-Arkadia, in the Peloponnesus of Greece. Since 2008, the new research is an ongoing work in progress and is still being currently conducted in Greece. The research was first mentioned on CNN International in May 2008.

Alexander the Great New Research-Are His Mummified Remains in Gortynia-Arkadia, Greece?

Alexander the Great Discovery-New Important Research Conducted in Greece

It’s amazing how no one picked up on this story before and added it to the article. If you believe it to be worthy enough to be added, please do so. The new research makes for a very good argument that Alexander’s remains may in fact be in Greece.

(Dioseus86xm (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

Too fringe. It seems claims of having found Alexanders tomb or remains crop up every year. If the results are accepted by the mainstream academia (which I highly doubt), then it will be time to add something about it in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for following up here instead of continuing on my talkpage. This way more editors can see your proposed edit and comment on it. I think what you are proposing to add to the article is just a theory. In my opinion, until it gets accepted by the mainstream academia it is too speculative to add here. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a new section and/or separate page article that is entitled "Theories and Ongoing Research About Alexander the Great?" It would not hinder the validity of the encyclopedia page of Alexander the Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioseus86xm (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, a separate section would include various ongoing theories and research about Alexander's life. For instance, the 2010 new theory about his death being caused by water from the River Styx was included in the main article. The theory is unproven and unverified by academia, thus, it should be included in a separate section, just like any other theory/ongoing research about Alexander the Great.Dioseus86xm (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. And no, unproven theories are not welcome in Wikipedia at least inside a mainstream article such as this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Euxaristo Dr.K. Mono na katalavoume pws O Alexandros einai panw apo olous mas. Oti ereunes uparxoun tou aksizei na dw8oun ston kosmo pou den xeroun to megaleio tou.Dioseus86xm (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry dio, that may be important, by it would be more useful in English IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Dioseus86xm is a very civil interlocutor. He wrote a nice message thanking me and mentioning that we have to understand that Alexander is above us all and that people should know about research on topics centering on Alexander so that they can understand his greatness. I agree fully with this point and I hope that in the future this fascinating research topic becomes notable enough to be included along with the other theories or even in its own article. I also thank Dioseus86xm for his civility and understanding. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the translation Dr. K. Once again, I want to warmly thank you and others on Wikipedia (editors and contributors). It is always good to know, that there are individuals who are dedicated to protecting the legacy of Alexander by carefully verifying all information (theories, proven facts, research, etc.) that should or shouldn't be included in such a very important, mainstream article. On behalf of myself and others, who are trying to protect such a great legacy as Alexander's (by trying to have other individuals know about various topics/research being discussed about Alexander), the effort is always greatly appreciated. Thank you.Dioseus86xm (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.110.229.70, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

69.110.229.70 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC) In the section "Death & Succession", under "Possible Causes" in "Poison", in the very last sentence, "...bacteria present its waters.", should be replaced with "...bacteria present in its waters.".

Later in the section "Influence on Rome", in the second sentence, "...saw him as his role model..." should be replaced with "...saw him as their role model..."

Tom Gleason (I don't know how to type tilds.)

Thanks. Done.--Charles (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

Following his desire to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea", he invaded India in 326 BC, but was eventually forced to turn back by the near-mutiny of his troops, who feared the military might of the Northern Indian kingdoms.

There are many explanations of the Alexander's retreat. One of them was not fearing the military might of anyone, rather the poor physical state and weariness of his troops exhausted by long marches through Afganistan mountains and the Indian north.--71.163.226.233 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right... This article often gets such comments by editors who want to overstress how mighty the Indians were then and how terrified Alexander and his men were... how in reality he was a vassal of Porus and how the poor Macedonians run for their lives from Punjub... and without saying that the men of Alexander did not respect the Indian might and were not afraid of having to give more battles, this surely was not the only nor the main reason for their mutiny. GK (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexander was NOT Greek

I think we should remove the line where its stated that he was an Greek king.

Because he spoke Greek doesnt make him Greek, many people speak English but that doesnt make them English right?

Here is a source that is telling us that Alexander was not Greek: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/greeklie5.html

Alexander considered himself in the first place as an Maceodnian not Greek, many Greeks were fighting as mercenaries in his army. Many Greeks were even fighting with the Persians against Alexander, why?

There is not one person from Alexanders time that states Alexander as Greek, the present day Greeks are telling us that he is Greek not the people who knew him and fought with him in battle.

I think we should debate here about this origins, because as far as I know his father Philip was disliked by the Greeks, Macedonians were called "Barbarians" by the Greeks, you can find everything in the link. Slavics (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, not again! Hundreds classical scholars from around the world have signed a letter protesting the unscientific allegations that the ancient Macedonians of Alexander's time were not Greeks, see here. For more read STOP with pathetic nationalism section above. And please do consider to read good books! A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Too right! Just because Athenians or other city states despised the less sophisticated Macedonians does not mean they were not ethnically Greek.--Charles (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1 thing is for sure, Alexander was no Slav, whatever he was, he spread Greek culture around the world, that counts. Redman19 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

India campaign misnomer

Can we correct the india campaign section as Alexander and his forces did not physically set foot into todays india. Alexander set out to conquer territories belonging to the Persian empires in the east which extended as far as Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. After the battle on the Hydapses near the city of Mong/Jhelum in Pakistan where his horse was fatally wounded, he sailed down the indus and his forces split into two, one branch went via sea and the other through the Balochistan desert in the direction of Babylon. I think this section needs to be corrected and made more factual. For a start, the region should be re-titled as the more politically correct SOUTH ASIA CAMPAIGN and even if one looks at the history after Alexanders departure, the bulk of the Greek kingdoms were established in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Please correct this section and improve it. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is known as the India campaign by reliable sources. Wikipedia summarises reliable sources, and does not aim to create anything new, nor to suppress what already exists. SilkTork *^YES! 23:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

ALEXANDER THE GREAT, GREEK KING OF MACEDONIA

TILL ONE MONTH AGO IN WIKI WAS FOUNDED THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS GREEK KING OF MACEDONIA. WHO DELETED THIS TRUTH AND WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.62.215 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND ARISTOTLE WAS MACEDONIANS AND BOTH OF THEM GREEKS!

Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC)[1] was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Aristotle was born in Stageira, Chalcidice, in 384 BC, about 55 km (34 mi) east of modern-day Thessaloniki.[4] His father Nicomachus was the personal physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. AS EVERYBODY CAN SEE ARISTOTLE WHO WAS MACEDONIAN HE WAS A GREEK PHILOSOPHER, SO ALEXANDER THE GREAT WHO WAS A MACEDONIAN, HE WAS A GREEK KING.

PLEASE RESTORE THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS A GREEK KING OF MACEDONS AS LEONIDAS WAS A GREEK KING OF SPARTANS. THIS IS THE TRUTH! THE MAN WAS GREEK FROM MACEDONIA AS LEONIDAS WAS GREEK FROM SPARTA. STOP LYING ABOUT THE GREATEST GREEK EVER....ALEXANDER THE GREAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.62.215 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that saying he was king of Macedon is lying about his Greek identity. If Macedonia was Greek then Alexander was Greek, and there is no need to say anything further. To say he was a Greek king of Macedonia implies that Macedonia wasn't Greek, but was ruled as an occupied territory by a Greek. Leonidas I, by the way, is described as "a hero-king of Sparta", not as a Greek king of Sparta. There are examples where someone's nationality might be a cause of interest, but that information is not declared loudly in the first sentence, it is kept for the appropriate section dealing with birth and nationality, such as Richard the Lionheart, who is described as "King of England" not as a "French King of England", and Prince Albert, who is described as "the husband of Queen Victoria", not as "the German husband of Queen Victoria". In this article, Alexander's lineage is fully described, and I am satisfied that there is enough discussion of that in relation to his Greek identity. SilkTork *^YES! 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Messy article

Some of the paragraphs in this article are are complete mess, it looks like some people with a poor grasp of English has gone through and added in comments and quotes from a book they have read to back their POV. I don't really see how this can be rated as a "good" article.

It all seems to go wrong around the "Conquest of the Persian Empire" section, the Battle of Granicus for example seems to flip between the views that Alexandros was inexperienced to being a military genius and back again, plus containing a whole load of POV commentary that is very out of place in the paragraph.

86.131.174.200 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)KR

Adding to this the Asia Minor section is a bit dramatic for wikipedia and there are some grammatical and structural errors, I believe. Can someone who is very proficient in English review at least that paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.40.13 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why???

So everyone - who is not Persian/Iranian - thinks of Alexander the Great a "the great". Well, is he really great? He conquered over 5 civilizations because he was power hungry. The main one he conquered is Persia. Back then, it was the greatest empire that had ever been existed - Persepolis. Notice that when Alexander the "Great" conquered it, it started getting worse and worse until he died. A while after he died, the Arabs came to conquer it and ruined it - all together until now and I think you can figure that out yourself. -OF COURSE HE IS GREAT U FOOL BECAUSE HE CONQUEREED THE BIGGEST CIVILISATIONS IN THE SHORTEST PERIOD OF TIME, SO YES HE WAS THE GREATEST OF ALL KINGS AND GENERALS.

Alexander the Not-so-Great conquered Persepolis because he was JEALOUS, yes, that's right - I said jealous. He was jealous that he wasn't Persian. Notice, he dressed in Persian clothes before he conquered Persepolis. He even had 3 wives because he wanted to be like them! But all he did was destroy it. -HE DID THAT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO CONTROL PERSIA. HE WAS NOT JEALOUS U IDIOT. IF HE TRIED TO IMPOSE HIMSELF THERE WOULB BE A REVOLUTION. IT WAS DIPLOMATIC, HE WAS NOT JEALOUS.

So think, should Alexander really be called "the Great" or "the Dreadful"?

Please comment your opinion - this is not meant to insult any cultures or people, it is meant to start a discussion. I myself (am Persian) and have many great friends who are Arab and Greek. PLEASE DO NOT BE INSULTED and COMMENT YOUR OPINION!

--Sit44 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great who founded the Persian Empire did the exact same thing to the Babylonian Empire, including bribery (which I don't think Alexander did). Also, when Croesus, the king of Lydia, attacked him, Cyrus attacked him during winter, when Croesus wasn't expecting an attack, in a surprise attack; contrast this with Alexander's rejection of his generals' plan to attack the Persians at night at the Battle of Gaugamela, to which he said that he did not want to "steal his victory". In the end, Cyrus the Great was a more or less fair ruler who promoted egalitarian conditions in many respects to his subjects, something that Alexander wanted to do as well, of which many Macedonians and Greeks disapproved. I doubt Alexander was jealous of Persia - he adopted Persian customs to bridge the cultural gap between the two cultures.

By the way, your comment doesn't look like any discussion-starter I've ever seen. It's hard to think of calling Alexander the Great, Alexander the Dreadful, as not insulting. Cornelius (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great was an enlightened ruler in comparison to Alexander III of Macedon - there is no record of Cyrus committing the kind of pointless mass-murder of defeated troops and civilians, or the type of destruction of cities like Thebes and Tyre, that Alexander was responsible for. Currently the article has very little reflection of the much darker view of Alexander that many modern historians have of him - I'm going to add some material to this effect soon. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We are calling him "the great" only because most reliable high-quality sources refer to him as "Alexander the Great". There is no other reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There are most certainly many other reasons why today Alexander the Great is referred to as "great". Many other rulers used the epithet, as far as I understand, and are not commonly ascribed as "the Great" - you can consult this list for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_The_Great. For example, Henry I, Duke of Burgundy was apparently called Eudes-Henry the Great, it seems around the time of his life or shortly after, but according to your theory he can't be simply Henry I, Duke of Burgundy. It should be obvious that Alexander the Great's achievements, whatever merit they may have had for the ancients, are the basis for retaining the modern epithet, not to mention that the discussion raised here was not "Why do we call him Alexander the Great today?", (and I nowhere stated that the title "the Great" was given in modern times), but "Why is he great" - something which you've apparently missed. Cornelius (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The basis is what current sources call him. They consistently refer to him as "Alexander the Great".

It's not because he was called that way while he was alive. For example Justin II was never called "II" while he was alive, he was called "junior" (Flavius Iustinus Iunior Augustus). Peter IV of Aragon called himself "III" in a few occassions, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course Justin II would not be called Justin II before the existence of a Justin III, but I don't see how this relates to someone being called "the Great" due to his achievements - after all they called him Alexander the Great for something, and regardless of what reason we still refer to him as "Alexander the Great", the original question was "Why is he great?". It is irrelevant as to when the description "the Great" became applied to him. He believed he was the son of zeus within his own lifetime, so I doubt he would have objected to the title. Justin II is certainly not the same as someone calling himself Justin the Great, I don't understand how your example points any errors in what I've written at all. Many such as Cyrus the Great, referred to themselves by more or less that title ("the Great king") within their own lifetime if I'm not mistaken. Alexander's achievements led to his being styled, "Alexander the Great", which title has been retained today. The basis is most certainly the ancient sources, but there's a reason why modern sources continue to use that name, unlike others such as the example I cited above. All I'm saying is, in answer to the original author's anti-Greek, pro-Persian attack-question, "Why is he great/called the great", it is because the ancient sources do so and the ancient sources call him that on the basis of his achievements, mostly military, similarly to the basis for calling Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar - the Great. Cornelius (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he pulled several battles that are still remembered and studied. And his decision to keep conquering until he ran out of world has become part of the legend, including the part where his own men forced him to stop and turn back because he wouldn't stop at anything.

There is also his vision of future and his plans for civilizing the whole known world, see Alexander_the_Great#Testament (from the Greek point of view, Greeks were civilized and the rest of the world was barbarian). He also created a lasting example for other people to follow (Caesar and Napoleon, for example) and influenced a lot of legends, see Alexander_the_Great#Hellenization and following sections. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated, he became known to history in the Western world as "the Great" - he conquered a very large (aka great) empire, even if the vast majority of it was the Achaemenid Persian empire, was "great" due to his military genius, and due to the Alexander myth about his so-called unity of all men, the appendage "great" was given to him. You are correct that in light of modern scholarship, a bloodthirsty megalomaniac who conquered and destroyed for sheer plunder and self-aggrandizement, who damaged Asian civilization in many areas, who caused untold misery and death to huge numbers of people, whose ideas of Greek superiority were absurd and set up no constructive, viable government in the areas he conquered which led to further bloodshed in the wars of his successors would not pass as "great." But if the article is written properly from Reliable Sources, the reader should be able to see the 'good' and 'bad' traits of Alexander and his empire.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

All historians prefer to translate into english only the Μέγας, and leave Alexander as a proper name, and untranslated. However, a proper translation of his "name" is Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας which translates to "The Great Protector/Defender of Mankind". Thus, the riddle, or the moral of the pseudo-historical fable is what? The answer can only be found in what he left undone by his inability to properly digest poison, namely his planned campaign against Blessed Arabia. 67.206.186.130 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The name may mean that but it is not how the Greeks of the time would have read it, the same way we see Charles as just a name instead of meaning "free man" it would have just been a name to them, not the literal translation.82.10.182.26 (talk) 06:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)KR

Where the persan empire used to be is now modern day Iran, but the people there still call themself persan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelashadowlb8 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FYROM

he was FYROMian and not Greek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.186.46 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I will direct you to anachronism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

He was Macedonian and the Macedonians at that time were part of the Greeks, they spoke Greek, wrote in Greek, had Greek names (like Alexander), prayed to Greek gods and saw themselves within the Greek world. He was also born in Pella I may add, which is still in Greece today.82.10.182.26 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)KR

Falsely cited source

Under "Character" - "Generalship", the claim is made

Alexander earned the epithet "the Great" due to his unparalleled success as a military commander.[65]

Where endnote 65 reads "Roisman & Worthington 2010, p. 192". However, the source cited merely reports this claim as "arguable". This sentence therefore needs a "Failed verification" tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.198.110 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How about adding "arguably":

Alexander arguably earned the epithet "the Great" due to his unparalleled success as a military commander.[65]

--Enric Naval (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, I can't think of any other reason why he would earn he epithet "the Great", nor is he known as "Alxander the arguably Great". Athenean (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Samarkand is in modern Uzbekistan, not Turkmenistan

In the article, the ancient city of Maracanda, modern Samarkand, is said to be in modern Turkmenistan. This is not true. It must be changed to Uzbekistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.109.204 (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BCE) Russian version

Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BCE)Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon. The Macedonians claimed descent from the hero Heracles, son of Zeus. They considered themselves Hellenes. Philip, who came to the throne in 360 BCE, did much to promote Macedon’s stature. He patronised the arts, stimulated the economy, and organised an unprecedented strong professional army. In his reign, Macedon became the greatest power in the region. He united the whole of Greece and he placed the previously autonomous Greek city-states under his rule in the Pan-Hellenic League. He married a series of princesses from the defeated territories for political motives, seeking to assure himself of their allegiance. Alexander’s mother, Princess Olympias of Epirus, was the fourth of Philip’s seven wives. http://www.alexandersydney.com.au/the-exhibition/about-alexander/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.18.206 (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this has been posted. Is it as a possible alternative to the current intro? If so, the word 'Hellenes' would need changing to Greeks, and it seems to be more about Philip than Alexander. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's been lifted verbatim from the website mentioned (an exhibition at the Hermitage) so we can't use it in any event. But the current introduction looks OK to me; someone would need to come up with something significantly better before it's worth discussing a replacement. I would take the information above as a FYI addition. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

Please review the last paragraph of the sections titled "Fall of the Empire and the East." Currently, there are multiple grammatical errors and a complete lack of citation. 74.134.246.179 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only for specific "change X to Y" requests, not for generic requests such as this. If the paragraph requires a copy edit for grammar, feel free to provide your own wording here and reactivate the edit request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Influence of Alexander the Great on Zen Budhism

Hellenization "Zen Buddhism draws in part on the ideas of Greek stoics, such as Zeno.[209]"

I think this quote should be left out. Citation comes from, The Pilgrimage of Buddhism and a Buddhist Pilgrimage by James Bissett Pratt (1928). This is an interesting idea but I challenge the intellectual rigor of the citation source. I would love to be wrong but it seems unlikely that a Greek philosopher called Zeno influenced the Japanese Buddhist sect Zen Buddhism.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Buddhism

"Zen is a school of Mahayana Buddhism[note 1] that originated in China during the 6th century as Chán. From China, Zen spread south to Vietnam, to Korea and east to Japan.[2]"

116.251.137.161 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that far fetched actually, China (where the Zen school originated) was the east terminus of the Silk road, which the Greeks were heavily involved with. First through actually owning a large stretch of it under the likes of Alexander and the Seleukids, and later through participating via trading, either from Greece itself or the numerous Greek communities and cities that existed as far east as modern day Tajikistan.

Plus its not unheard of either, we know that the iconography for a few Japanese Buddhist deities have their origins in Greek gods like Boreas and Herakles, even the fact that the Buddha is depicted in human from in the first place is due to Indo-Greek artists.

78.146.61.108 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Kenny

Empire size problem

Using American Miles here: At 2 million square miles conquered in 10 years, that means: 200k sq. mi./year added to the empire; 200k/12= ~ 16,666 sq. mi/month; 200k/365= ~ 548/day! Not possible when horses can only go ~20 miles[200 stadia]/day. Not possible even with 30k horse; limit/day is still 20 miles/200 stadia. I hypothesize the kerfluffle caused is that the size of the empire was about 2 million sq. mi., but the empire's size when Philip Makedon (Alex's dad) died is either not known, or not stated. Empire size at Alex's death minus Empire size at Philip's death equals added land-hold to House Macedon. 71.119.48.19 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• One only needs conquer the capitals of hydraulic despots to take over large areas one's forces never even visit. Abductive (reasoning) 13:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He didn't need to have fought for every inch of land, this was't like WW1. He basically won control of the majority of the Persian Empire in a handful of battles, because once the satraps saw that they were losing the war they switched sides and took their provinces with them. It wasn't until he reached central asia that he had to start fighting more and more for new territory.

Also your horse figure is a bit off, a human could 20 miles a day, horses can be +100 if need be.78.146.61.108 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Kenny

Edit request on 25 April 2013

One thing that I believe could be a decent addition to the source as is, would be to add an instance or two of a detailed fight. For example, add a little bit more of a battle sequence and how Alexander was able to conquer so easily. Here is something I might add about how Alexander was able to catch the Thracian villages outside of the Danube River in an easy ambush. This takes place right after the first initial take down of a Thracian village, and Alexander and his troops set out for those who scrambled out of that skirmish. (Documents in parantheses provided by Arrian in his book "Campaigns of Alexander".)

After reaching the mouth of the Black Sea, Alexander and his troops found an ambush awaiting them. Several ships and a disadvantage on terrain (narrow pathways leading to the ships, river currents, and steep shores) left them in a bad position to fight (Arrian 47). Alexander did notice that they had the fire power, but not the number advantage. He needed to get across the Danube River. The river had no bridge so it made it extremely difficult to be able to get the tactical advantage. Alexander decided to join his troops and be in the battle. He and his men set up the carriages and got set. He took what troops he could and traveled at night in preparation in surprise. His troops were ordered to flank from one direction while he and a select few came from the opposite direction. Nicanor was Alexander’s trusted leader of the first brigade of men flanking for him. As both ends accommodated together in the middle, they ambushed the Getae village where the ships were stationed (Arrian 48). The assault was too much pressure for the village, and the inhabitants were forced to depart. The villagers departed and set out for a new land and to escape Alexander’s hands. Victorious, Alexander and his troops salvaged all they could of the valuables of the now broken city. Alexander has individualized out and decimated anyone in his way. Dcr0004 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Much too detailed for this article. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Article about Alexander the Great need to be edited. Word "greek" needs to be removed from article.

Article about Alexander the Great need to be edited. In the article word "greek" apears too many times. But word "greek" needs to be removed from article. Ethimiology of word "greek" tells us that it is created sometime in 15th century AD and this means that the word "greek" is created 1800 years after the life of Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great never used word "greek" in his life and for this reason it is a big wrong that word "greek" appears to the article about Alexander the Great. Also according to original documents of the time of Alexander the Great the word "greek" was never used in that time and this is a strong reason that forces us to remove the use of word "greek" in the article about Alexander the Great as a word used out of context. Word "greek" cannot represent truly an ancient period so it needs to be removed from every other text for ancient times and not only in the article of Alexander the Great.

Newalbin (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a great antipathy to Greece and the Greeks. It would be wise to check his other edits before a decision is made about editing here. Kiltpin (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true that Alexander wouldn't have used the word Greek, as that is an English term, from Latin. He also wouldn't have called himself Alexander, or recognised the word Great. This is an English version of wikipedia, so we use English terms like Greek, Alexander and Great, instead of Hellene, Alexandros and Megas. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Zen and Zeno

Just because there is a similarity between the words Zen and Zeno, this is no grounds to suspect that there is a conncetion. Go read Bissett Pratt's work - whoever cited it as a source misread what it says. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what Bisset Pratt says:

"Like other Mahayana thinkers he could not be satisfied with the phenomenalism, the positivism of the Hinayana. Such a succession of real dharmas as the Sautrantikas maintained necessitated, in his opinion, some real ground for them. Such a real ground for things would be fatal to the Anatta doctrine, and would lead one on to the conception of a real underlying self, comparable to the Atman of the Vedanta. One might suppose that Nagarjuna would therefore have concluded to the existence of a real Self. But the Anatta doctrine was too important to be surrendered; so he took the opposite and incredibly daring course of denying the reality of the dharmas altogether, without putting anything in their place. The consequence of this step, once fully understood, is enough to make a Western reader gasp. It means that all things, whether conscious or material, are composed entirely of what is absolutely unreal. The parts being unreal, the wholes which they compose must be. Nothing is - nothing is except the Void. This Sunyata doctrine is the fundamental principle of the Madhyamika philosophy.

Astonishing as is this position, it is by no means absolutely unique. There are things in the philosophical teachings of Zeno, Parmenides, Eucleides of Megara, of Plato and Plotinus, and, in our own days, in Mr. Bradley’s position, that more or less closely resemble it." This is the ONLY TIME in the entire book that Bisset Pratt mentions Zeno. Yet, some editor thought to deduce from the above quote that "Zen Buddhism draws in part on the ideas of Greek stoics, such as Zeno". Hullo!! I wander who has been smoking his grandfather's socks!!! And not understanding an edit summary is no reason to revert an edit. Next time ask. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2013

Please don`t change history and write the real birthplace of Александар МАКЕДОНИЈА.Thank you. 77.28.242.220 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

His real birthplace is mentioned in the article as Pella, which is where he was born. Please can you clarify what you mean? DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would only like to say a big "Bravo" to the writer of this article.. I am Greek and i must say that this english article is by far the best comparing to the Greek one that is poor and i could say undetailed indeed... The fact that you refer to the origin and the etymology of the name Alexander makes this article simply briliant... Bravo again..!!!!

"Εάν δεν ήμουν Αλέξανδρος, θα ήθελα να ήμουν Διογένης" Alexander the Great , the greatest great of all time... --Panagiotes (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

King of Persia; Predecessor

This is about three articles. I don't feel like posting on all Talk pages, and decided that posting this here is better than not posting at all. Here goes. Regarding the Infobox in this article: his predecessor as King of Persia was Bessus instead of Darius III, and his reign started in 329. At Achaemenid family tree it correctly says 329, but at List of kings of Persia it says Artaxerxes V left office (he died) in 329 BC and Alexander entered office in 330 BC. That's impossible, because in BC the year 329 is after 330. It should say that Alexander's reign started in 329. This also means the lifespan the Achaemenid Empire article mentions is probably incorrect. Have fun with this information. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I'm probably wrong. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Alexander named it Bucephalas, meaning "ox-head". Bucephalas carried Alexander as far as Pakistan.

Pakistan created last century (1947 AD)should change to western part of Indian subcontinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.235.63 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Death year of Great Alexander 3

Hi There,

I read in your article, Alexander the great had invended India in 326 BC but in the next line it is said that He was died in 323 BC.

How is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.34.100 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BC dates count down to 1, not count up from 1 like AD.

Or he was a time traveller.

Take your pick. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alexander name meaning in Greek

Dear All,

In the article it is written that Alexander means (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégasiii[›] from the Greek ἀλέξω alexo "to defend, help" + ἀνήρ aner "man") ==> To defend another man

This is an error from what a I know alexo (αλεξω) means to repel! So Alexander meas to repel To repel another man My opinion is backed up by the Greek version of Wikepedia ( which I provide here as I citation http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CE%BB%CE%AD%CE%BE%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82).

Also the same view as me (to repel) is shared by the english version of wikipedia it self http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.39.82 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore : http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Da%29le%2Fcw

We have quotes: defend one self (against others) = to repel etc

In Greek similar word is : Αλεξικεραυνο= (αλεξικέραυνο < αλεξ- (< ancient greek ἀλέξω) + κεραυνός) = lightning rod

Which of course means to repel thunders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.39.82 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A lightning rod DOES NOT repel but ATTRACTS lightning. Are you high? ancient greek ἀλέξω = TO ATTRACT something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.102.251 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No I am not hi i should have written it better, it means to defend against lightening!For αλεξω, look at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.39.82 (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

They can not both be correct, their is a major discrepancy here!

Thank you, Alexander Ch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.39.82 (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It means "defender/protector of men". This is well attested, there is no discrepancy. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The IP's etymology of Αλεξικεραυνο is false, it means "something that protects from lightning", not "repeller". Cf. also αλεξίπτωτο ("smth that protects from fall", parachute) or αλεξίσφαιρο ("smth. that protects from bullets", bullet-proof), etc. Constantine ✍ 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

a state in northern a state of northern Twopix (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he wants to change a sentence in the lead, from "a state in northern" to "a state of northern". I don't know which one is more correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Influence on Rome

The article says "Julius Caesar dedicated a Lysippean equestrian bronze statue". My question is "dedicate to what/who"? 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Does "dedicate" mean "unveil" here? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional Trivia

Alexander aspired to be more famous than Achilles. He kept his copy of the Iliad under his pillow, next to a dagger.

Lynn Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures a concise history 4th ed. Boston, Bedford/St.Martin's, 2013. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.29 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

How can we categorially state the dates of his birth and death when we have gone through various calendars, with today rival interpretations and the article itself further down states that the date of birth "probably corresponds to 20 July 356 BC, although the exact date is not known". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Greek kingdom of Macedon" VS "Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece"

Dear Fut.Perf, while the "Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece" is plausible, I recommend "Greek kingdom of Macedon" over it, for the following facts:

• The definitions "Northern", "Southern", "Western" and "Eastern" for "Ancient Greece" are in best of cases unclear, and thus, avoided from being used in articles regarding Macedon, Sparta, Athens, Epirus and or other important states of that era. The term "Greek peninsula" is used instead for describing the state's geographical location. (Check the article about the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon for example of the use of a such term).
• The kingdom of Macedon did not had stable borders, and it expanded already its borders since its early periods of existence, against neighboring tribes, such as Thracians and Paeonians, whom the territories were not Greek as far as I know.
• Although the kingdom of Macedon was centered around Pella and Vergina, the kingdom was not cornered around the northern part of ancient Greece but also held territories far to the south (especially in Central Greece), including Larissa, and at some point, as far as Ambracia (Western modern day Greece) and Corinth (Southern modern day Greece).
• This article is about King Alexander (a person), not about the Kingdom itself. So such detailed info again it is not really necessary to be put in the leading paragraph of the article. Better leave the geographical details for the paragraph about his birthplace and early life, instead.
• If the Wiki readers are seeking more detailed info about the Kingdom's geographical location, they can just visit the proper page for that: Macedon.
• The articles about other great ancient Greek heroes and Kings, such as Leonidas write "was a king of the Greek city-state of Sparta" and are intentionally avoiding the term "Southern Ancient Greece", as it bears too much (although valid) info about the actual kingdom's geography - people who are interested about the kingdom itself, they can just click the links to its page.

under this scope, I agree already with you in that the leading paragraph about King Alexander should have less clutter than before and be kept clean. --SilentResident (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the "Greek kingdom of Macedon" proposal, it is much more accurate. there is no such thing as a defined geographical territory of Ancient Greece, but states and kingdoms of Hellenic civilisation (language and religion). In addition, kingdom in Ancient Greece might mislead readers to believe that it refers to Macedonian (Slavic) history of the territory of the modern Greek state, in a similar manner that "Ancient Turkey" is sometimes used to refer to Persian/Greek history at the territories of Turkey, Ancient Italy for Rome and Ancient Macedonia (independent state) refers to Paeonian and Macedonian (ancient) History Stevepeterson (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

"Please change from WAS A KING OF MACEDON to WAS A GREEK KING OF MACEDON because Alexander belonged to the Greek Argead Dynasty which was a Greek Dynasty from Argos in the Peloponnese. Ref; 'Alexander was one of the first Greeks - though not quite the very first - to be worshipped as a god in his lifetime'. (Paul Cartledge, 'Alexander the Great:The Hunt for a New Past'). I see no issue in stating that Alexander was a Greek king of Macedon, it's a statement of fact and merely clarifies the point since the ancient Greek region of Macedon was also inhabited by non-Greek tribes such as Paeonians, Mygdones, Thracians, and Edonians."

AkiiraGhioni (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The sentance already reads "was a king of Macedon, a state in northern ancient Greece." we don't need to duplicate the word Greek. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

as per my original comment. It is unnecessary - no incorrect - to repeat Greek twice in same sentence. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. We do not say Kennedy was an American president of USA, We do not say Victoria was a British queen of the UK, though we do say William 1 was a Norman King of England - in that case the qualifier conveys additional information. It is poor English to say Alexander was a Greek King of (part of) Greece. By the way, please do not alter earlier comments as it makes it difficult for anyone else to follow the conversation. Please add any new comments below. Thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think AkiiraGhioni has a point. There is also confusion with the modern use of the term Macedonian referring to either South Slavic ethnic group or used as geographical qualifier today for people living in the region of Macedonia from Albanian, Bulgarian and Greek background. "Greek king of Macedon" also brings consistency with all other pages for ancient Greek historical figures, eg Aristotle. for example the article of Pericles: (Pericles (/ˈpɛrɪkliːz/; Greek: Περικλῆς [periklɛ̂ːs], Periklēs, "surrounded by glory"; c. 495 – 429 BC) was the most prominent and influential Greek statesman, orator and general of Athens during the Golden Age—specifically, the time between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars. He was descended, through his mother, from the powerful and historically influential Alcmaeonid family.. Besides, it seems to me that the qualifier Greek was indeed in this article until two days ago when use localhero removed with the ambiguous excuse that he "undid POV edits of another user" who however doesnt appear in the history for long time. The edit by localhero looks suspicious and I believe we should undo the edit of local hero to its original form (Greek king of Macedon) 202.188.10.171 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually local hero reverted an addition made just 4 weeks previously, back to the way the page had stood for the previous six months (at least) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie, I disagree with you that it is a repetition to mention that Alexander was a Ancient Greek king of Macedon, an ancient state located in Ancient Greece. This is because we refer to an ancient ethnic group and a territory of a modern state. Without the qualifier "ancient Greek" the article actually means that the modern Greece state has expanded its borders to a land that historically belonged to a different kindom and nation (Macedonian) where Alexander used to belong to. I suspect that this is the reason why localhero removed the word Greek specifically in Alexander and he should had discussed his proposed edit. We dont want wikipedia to feed unnecessary irredentism. Stevepeterson (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So i guess conclusion is Done! 124.13.107.172 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the state in Ancient Greece from Macedon, as this is an article about Alexander, not about Macedon. If they want to learn more about Macedon they can visit the hyperlink. Also it is consistent to other articles, eg Pericles a Greek orator of Athens. Another point is that it is incorrect to say that Macedon was a state in Ancient Greece, because Ancient Greece was not a federal country but a civilisation spread across different city states and kingdoms. I hope that this is an agreeable solution by all Stevepeterson (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeterson, I agree, in fact it is more correct to say that Macedon was a Greek nation (or Kingdom).

maybe "a Greek king of Macedon, an ancient Kingdom." ?it gives a brief description about Macedon to those not familiar, and also distinguishes from modern uses eg geographical territory in the Balkans, or an independent state. I don't think it should be Ancient Greek Kingdom here, mentioning too many times the word Greek might sound as a propaganda, we want to give historical facts manoeuvring contemporary politics. also Greek king should appear as Greek King. 124.13.107.172 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was perfectly fine the way it was for last 6 months or so. Now because some editors feel insecure, the word 'Greek' must be added after every other word. And Pella is a linked word in the lead: if one wishes to learn where exactly it is today, the link can followed, there's no reason to go into detail as to where it falls currently. If any word should be inserted between 'a' and 'king', it should be ancient Macedonian, but then that'd be redundant. So, I see no good reason to add the extra superfluous wording. --Local hero ^talk 18:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Stevepeterson, I think this final edit is fine, I don't think it was necessary to put 'an ancient Kingdom'. 'Alexander was a Greek King of ancient Macedon' would have been fine. So it follows the same format as 'Leonidas was Greek King of ancient Sparta'. AkiiraGhioni (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"We must remember too that Philip and Alexander were Greeks, descended from Heracles, they wished to be recognized by the Greeks, as benefactors of the Greeks, even as Heracles had been." (N G L Hammond, Alexander the Great, 1989, p.257)AkiiraGhioni (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Local hero, according to you, wikipedia should change the nomenclature of all other ancient greeks with the name of their city states/kindoms as a qualifier instad of the ethnic group eg Leonidas become a Spartan Hero and Pericles an Athenian orator instead of the current forms. You may request to change this at all articles if you think it is more accurate (and I will support you if you succeed in convincing) but please dont change only Alexander's article just to mislead that Alexander's Macedonia is the same thing as the current use of the term for Macedonia referring to a Balkan state, located nothern than the ancient kingdom and with inhabbitanst who self identify as a south slavic group with heroes such as Semuel the Macedonian and Cyril&Methodius. Also, there is nothing wrong in mentioning the location of Alexander's birth which is also the capital of his kingdom, I am sure that you wouldnt want to remove it if it was located in teh Republic of Macedonia. This is an encyclopedic article, not a battlefield for political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.107.172 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good god: the crap some people write to make a point! IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would want it removed regardless; the fact that Justinian I was born near present-day Skopje is not mentioned in the lead of that article at all because it would be unnecessary, just like it is here. Notice how Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg doesn't state "German Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia" - it only states "Elector of..."; Ivan III of Russia doesn't say "Russian Grand Prince of Moscow", etc. If ancient Macedonia was Greek, then there's no reason to say anything other than that in the lead. Writing 'Greek King of Macedon' implies that Macedonia was not Greek, which I'm sure you disagree with. --Local hero ^talk 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Locahero, I dont know what is the agreed format for Germans but in all greek people wikipedia uses this format ethnic group -> name -> capacity -> of geographical area/state. Leonideas is a Greek hero of Sparta, Pericles is a Greek orator of Athens. This doesnt imply that Sparta or Athens were not Greek states but gives information on the ethnic group and later for the geographical area. This format is accurate and follows exactly the same format: Alexander was a Greek king of Ancient Macedon. Alexander could had been a Greek king of Macedon regardless if it was a Greek kingdom in a simmilar manner that he became a King of non Greek kingdoms, Persia, Egypt etc. and since you mention Germans, King Otto was a Bavarian King of Greece. My question which agrees with the peopel above is why dont you want to change the format in all articles of Greeek people and you only do it for Alexander Stevepeterson (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you point me to the agreement where that format was accepted? Because, when this article was promoted to GA, it looked like this. Notice the lack of the superfluous wording you've added. And yes, it actually does imply that Macedonia was occupied by Greeks, that kings of Macedon were not typically Greek. As for your question, well I, if you look at my editing history, don't have much interest in the ancient world. I noticed your change here after I deemed your editing to be nationalistic, so I simply wished to restore it to the stable version. --Local hero ^talk 03:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Locahero, dont edit teh page without consulting your fellow editors, again this is a encyclopedic article not a battlefield to promote Macedonian nationalism. I have reverted your edits Stevepeterson (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could actually respond to my comment instead of telling me what Wikipedia is. I waited a few days and you didn't respond so I brought it back to the stable version. Please don't avoid addressing my comment. --Local hero ^talk 14:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No one responded to your comment because it is not a question; it just explains the motives of your recent edit, which as yourself commented was driven not by your interest in Ancient History but by the desire to undo a 3 months old edit by another user, because you thought that this user has made biased edits on a different/unrelated article. The fact that none responded to this comment is not an answer to AkiiraGhioni's request and not a reason to change the article. Stevepeterson (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked you where the agreement was made that these articles would be formatted the way you suggest here. You still haven't told me. The only other reliable user here, IdreamofJeanie, also seemed to think that this change to the article would be useless. The only ones that seem to agree here are the anonymous user and yourself (assuming you aren't the same person...). --Local hero ^talk 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Stevepeterson. The sentence (a Greek king of the ancient kingdom of Macedon) looks just right now and it's similar to Leonidas I. The rest is modern politics. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, but will you stop drinking your wine unmixed? :) -- Director (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, it looks like someone else has a serious drinking problem here... ;) Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that "Greek king of..." phrasing, for the simple reason that it is redundant. It sounds as if Macedon had several different kinds of kings, Greek ones and others, and it had to be specified which of these kinds Alexander belonged to. Ethnicity is usually not named separately in lead sentences when the remaining part of the sentence already implies it. We don't say "Elizabeth II is the English Queen of the United Kingdom", or "Frederick II was a German king of Prussia" either. It just sounds silly. Lead sentences of monarch articles invariably just say what the person was king of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

:Note: previous discussion here in 2011, leading to the long-standing consensus that the adjective should not be used in the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Future here. I've been listening to a TTC lecture series on Alexander by Kenneth W. Harl, and he rather unambiguously states that Macedonians were viewed as barbarians by contemporary Greeks, that its clear their language was unintelligible to Greeks (which is the definition of 'barbarian', "bar bar..."), and that Alexander was an ethnic Macedonian. I don't really dispute that he can be viewed as "Greek", and neither does Harl, but lets not overplay it. -- Director (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that this vieew (contrary what many editors here have been trying hard to convince themselves of) is still mainstream scholarship. However, please note that my argument is actually quite independent of any such considerations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Harl says the unmixed wine thing may be a bit funny to us, but that to the Greeks it was an abhorrent custom - you must mix your wine with water or you're insane :). Its indicative of the wild ("barbaric" if you will) parties the Macedonians threw, in contrast to the Greek symposia which were far more dignified and studious affairs. Further, the Macedonians lived under a king, which on its own was very much alien/barbaric to the Greeks. Then there's the tradition of polygamy among Macedonian kings and nobility, and the fact that these kings married barbarian women.. both practices completely unacceptable to Greeks. Clearly there was a difference in mores, as well as in language. -- Director (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only consensus I see here is that the word "Greek" should be used in the lead, exactly because the consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek. As for Harl's lecture, he is probably unaware of the fact that the term barbarian was also used by Greeks to mock and deride other Greeks and it was mainly Athenians (in fact some Athenians) at the time of the struggle with Philip II that questioned the "Greekness" of Macedonians. In other words, this was a political distinction, not an ethnic one; and as on "Alexander being an ethnic Macedonian", I guess we can all have a good laugh at this statement! Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, had the wrong archive number in my link above. Here's the correct link again. (And let's not start discussing our personal opinions about that Hart lecture or any other aspects of that debate again now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The central point is that Macedonian appears to have been unintelligible to Greeks, which is the definition of "barbarian" (i.e. "one who speaks gibberish we can't understand"). -- Director (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we all know this argument exists; no, can we please not re-open a debate over what we personally think about that? It is actually not very relevant to the question of whether to use the adjective in the lead sentence anyway, at least the way I see it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention of entering into a forum-like debate, just wanted to clarify my above post. But I will also register my disdain at the idea that the position of an acclaimed scholar specializing in the region should be "laughed at!" under any circumstances. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose M. was just missing the point that "ethnic Macedonian" in that context would obviously have referred to the Ancient Macs, not the modern Macs... not worth getting too upset over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, good for him if by "ethnic Macedonian" meant "ancient Macedonian". Because, as Mary Beard, professor of classics in Cambridge University said, "The antecedents of Alexander are a bit murky, but in truth, there isn't a cat in hell's chance that he was a Slav!" Now the inscriptions from Macedonia are all written either in Attic (koine) Greek, or a Greek dialect showing affinities both with the north-western ('Doric') dialects of Epirus and with the north-eastern ('Aeolic') dialects of Thessaly. This is the Macedonian dialect of Greek. If the ancient documents preserved today on stone reveal only those two possibilities, there is clearly no basis for a separate language. It may be noted that Plato (Protagoras 341C), in referring to the Aeolic dialect of Lesbian authors, calls it “barbaric” by which he may intend crude or rough, but Greek all the same. Anyway, I really think it's best to stop this debate here. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Well of course I didn't mean he was Slavic! For goodness sake... No, Harl means to say Greeks and (Ancient!) Macedonians were distinct, and that Alex was Macedonian much more than Hellenic. He basically supports that by pointing out that Alexander behaved just like a Macedonian, i.e. that he was polygamous, that he married barbarian women, engaged in the traditional Macedonian insane drinking parties, etc. All those things were unthinkable to Greeks. Unlike his father (who spent a part of his youth in Thebes), Alex seems to have had very little patience for Greeks and Greek politics, despised democracy.. Harl points to a rather silly coin apparently issued in modern Greece that has Alexander as a deified Great King on the one side, and the inscription "Greek Democracy" on the other :). As regards the actual modern dispute, Harl does briefly address it. He points out that Balkans history is a horrible mess, and that Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia are about as likely as Greek-speaking inhabitants to have Ancient Macedonian genetic heritage, that neither speak anything like ancient Macedonian.. -- Director (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC) All those things were unthinkable to Athenians, not all Greeks. As Ulrich Wilcken, a German historian, pointed, "When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." Alexander had no wish to swallow up Greece in Macedonia, but rather to make Macedonia, as a Greek state, the ruling power of Greece. He revived his father's League of Corinth, and with it his plan for a pan-Hellenic invasion of Asia to punish the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks. As on modern ethnic Macedonians having ancient Macedonian genetic heritage, I will direct you to the six-year long DNA research of the Balkan peoples conducted by “Skopje Forensics Medicine Institute” which showed that ethnic Macedonians are Slavs and have the most similar DNA primarily with Bulgarians and secondary with Serbs (Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages e108-e111, August 2011, Genetic data for 17 Y-chromosomal STR loci in Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia, Zlatko Jakovski, Ksenija Nikolova, Renata Jankova-Ajanovska, Damir Marjanovic, Naris Pojskic, Biljana Janeska, http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2811%2900079-2/fulltext). Can we now stop this debate here? Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Hmm, how does the relationship between Macedonian and Bulgarian/Serbian DNA determine the prevalence of Ancient Macedonian DNA?? That study merely explores which neighboring country the inhabitants of the RoM are most similar with genetically, it has nothing to say on whether Greeks or Macedonians have more Ancient Macedonian genetic heritage. Sure, I would have bet too that they're most like Bulgarians.. Nvm, no point in further discussion.. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Perhaps because Ancient Macedonians were de facto not Slavs, while modern ethnic Macedonians are... Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) It should be pointed out that the general consensus amongst scholars is that the ancient Macedonians spoke an archaic dialect of Greek or proto-Greek that was unintelligible to other Greeks. During Philip's reign the nobility and elite Macedonians adopted the more refined Attic Greek spoken in Athens and the region of Attica.AkiiraGhioni (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh can you please both stop it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Future, I recommend a good night sleep and a brief break. Pardon me for being forward, but you seem rather irritable. -- Director (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not proven that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, they were a mix of Ilyrians, Protoslavs and perhaps Greeks. But the Agreian royal family of Alexander, originating from Argos a city in the heart of Greece can be nothing else than Greek. Alexander spoke and wrote the Greek language (evident from archaeological findings eg coins, scripts), his name was Greek, he originated from Argos and worshiped the Olympian Gods. He was Greek, not ethnic Macedonian and neither Ilyrian. Macedonian nationalists who edit this page, please show me a single historian (other than Aleksander Donski who also believes that Aleksander, Queen Elizabeth of the UK, Samuel the Macedonian all share Gruevskis lineage) who has any doubt that the Argos city and the Argeian royal family were belonging to the ancient greek civilisation. So it is correct to say that Alexander was Greek king of Macedonia, (a state and region inhabited by a mixure of ethnic groups until today) but not correct to say Alexander was a king of Macedonia in ancient Greece. There was no state called Ancient Greece, but states and kingdoms speaking Greek and believing in the Greek gods. Stevepeterson (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

While the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians is uncertain, at least their Kingdom was certainly Greek (the Kingdom's religion was Greek, they worshipped the Greek Dodecatheon, they used the detradrahmon (Greek currency), spoke and read (at least their elite) in Greek (Language). So to clear things out and not let people get confuse the ancient Kingdom and the present-day republic of same name, the following will be the stable version for the article from today and on: was a (NO ETHNICITY HERE)king of the (ETHNICITY HERE:Greek) kingdom of Macedon. This way, we will keep the article transparent AND balanced, and this is the best we can do for now. For further discussion about the identity of the King Alexander the Great and his people, the Wiki Users shall use the Talk Page of the article Ancient Macedonians rather than Alexander's Talk Page... Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that reads much better and includes all the necessary info, thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

:NOTE: For further discussion about the identity of the King Alexander the Great and his people, it is recommended that the Wiki Users use the Talk Page: Ancient Macedonians rather than Alexander's one. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I also approve the new version Stevepeterson (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurately mentions Persian use of scimitars

It is written in section 8.1 of this article ("Generalship") that the Persian infantry force at the Battle of Granicus was armed with scimitars and javelins. Scimitars were not invented until at least a thousand years after the Battle of Granicus, so I believe their possible use in this battle is unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxophage (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Name in Greek

"commonly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, Aléxandros ho Mégas)". Is there any evidence of him being called "the Great" in classical Greek, rather than just Alexander? I can't see anything in TLG, but perhaps there are inscriptions. Anyway ὁ μέγας probably shouldn't be capitalised. And the footnote giving the derivation of the name should also point out its antiquity (e.g. that Paris in the Iliad was also known as Alexander) as established proper names call to mind previous bearers rather than root meanings - if you call someone Winston it probably isn't because it means "joyful stone" (if it does). Northutsire (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Alexander the Great in the Quran

I think that we should put the sentence ' the Qur'anic figure of Dhul-Qarnayn is allegedly Alexander the Great' to the first paragraph of the article. Anyone agree? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"alledgedly"? does not belong in lead. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not certain but almost. Thats why its alleged The Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān says: "Dhū'l-Qarnayn, an epithet usually assigned to Alexander the Great but also attributed to Moses by Muslim as well as Jewish and Christian exegetes." (Wheeler, p. 260). The Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, second edition says "It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modéra occidental scholars that D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn, “the two-horned”, in Sūra XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be identified with Alexander the Great." (Watt, "al-Iskandar"). The third edition says "Dhū al-Qarnayn (usually identified with Alexander the Great)" (Cook, "Gog and Magog"). The Brill Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān says "Traditional and modern scholars have identified the figure the Qurʾān refers to as the Possessor of the Two Horns (Dhū l-Qarnayn, q 18:83, 86, 94) as Alexander the Great (al-Iskandar in Arabic)." (Renard, "Alexander"). As Atethnekos said in another talk page. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 05:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE FIX: Smooth breathing missing above omicron in Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας"

The rough breathing is missing above the "o" in "Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας".

It should be "ὁ".

Explicitly:

 Αλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας

(this article is edit-locked (or something))

-- dios axilnos (just kidding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.221.81 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

King of Persia?

Alexander the great did become king of Persia in 331 B.C but who did he overthrow? Does anyone know exactly when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.86.204.236 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Darius III?

I dispute a particular line in this article

In the section under Personality we read:

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.[137]

Now I must take issue with this, especially since it seems to be a modern assessment. In the first place, I do not see how Alexander could possibly have developed megalomania when he was at the time the most powerful human being in the world and already one of the greatest in all history. He was deified after his death both by those who knew him and those who had heard of his exploits (see for instance the Alexander Romance across many different cultures).

His final plans were not at all grandiose or impossible, apart from the fact that he himself could not live to see them through. And he had every right to a little paranoia, having survived plot after plot against his life.

In my opinion this line should be changed or removed, or put in line with more established sources like Arrian. His drinking has also been exaggerated by many biographers and historians, who in some cases failed to understand that in certain regions of Asia Alexander and his entourage drank wine in place of water, the water there being unsafe to drink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.216.31 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

My sister is a PhD in History and she said that Alexander may have been born from 21st to 23rd July. This was her research topic. Requesting changes.

61.17.27.124 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, what your sister said, is not acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please fix: under "After Death", change "The latter" to "Augustus"

"Pompey, Julius Caesar and Augustus all visited the tomb in Alexandria. The latter allegedly accidentally knocked the nose off the body." -> "The latter" is only correct if referring to two items, there are three in the list. Changing "The latter" to "Augustus" is probably the easiest fix. (Alternatively "Pompey, Julius Caesar and Augustus (who allegedly knocked the nose off the body) all visited the tomb in Alexandria.")

--62.254.234.130 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I also removed "off the body" as most people have their noses on their face - Arjayay (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian

The words "Greek" or "Greece" are all over in the intro. Macedonian barely registers. Subversive indoctrination?194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is I guess to avoid confusion with modern uses of the term Macedonian (ie modern resident of the contemporary geographical area of Macedonia). Since Alexander was both Greek ethnicly (as an Argean) culturaly (as a believer of Greek polytheism) and Linguistically(speaker of Greek and introducer of the koini variant) I dont see any problem with the stress on his ethnic group rather than the name of his kingdom, none can deny that he was a Macedonian (resident of the ancient kingdom) because he was the king of the Kingdom. 121.129.70.178 (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon"

This text can be found in the introduction. If I'm not mistaken, the only correct name of this Ancient Kingdom is Macedonia and not Macedon. And anyway, the link of the word "Macedon" leads to the article "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)". So, this text should probably change to "Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.227.207.68 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Macedonia and Macedon are correct. Quote: "Macedon is a Greek speaking Kingdom in northern Greece" (Robin Lane Fox, Oxford University).AkiiraGhioni (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

King of the Ancient Greek Kingdom V King of the Ancient Kingdom

There has been a consensus in February 2014 when the current format "King of the Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia" was agreed. Please stop the unnecessary edit wars, unless you want to propose a change. Stevepeterson (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the original agreed consensus of February 2014. And add the following references; ..(Jacob Abbot, 'Alexander the Great' "Alexander was born the heir to the throne of one of the Grecian Kingdoms), ..(Mark Grossman, 'Biographical Dictionary of World Military leaders', "When Alexander was a child, his father was making Macedon into one of the greatest Greek city states"), ..(Mortimer Chambers, 'The Western Experience', p.79 "Macedonia or Macedon was an ancient somewhat backward Kingdom in northern Greece"), ..(David Sacks 1995, A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek world', OUP, "At the start of his reign, the 20 year old Alexander was crowned King of only Macedon, a crude Greek nation north east of mainland Greece") ..(Robin Lane Fox, Interview, "Macedon is a Greek speaking Kingdom in northern Greece")AkiiraGhioni (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jana Jazova

Jana Jazova (Яна Язова), Bulgarian writer has written a novel about Alexander, called Alexander of Macedonia (Александър Македонски). I would like to include this book in the list of "furhter reading". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.249.14 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As a work of fiction it can not provide any real information about Alexander: Further reading is to direct readers to scholarly works for further study beyond the scope (or size) of this article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014

i want to change the article a bit, cause some of the information is wrong, and there's missing info too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMKD (talk • contribs)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a clumsy sentence and I would like to see it changed:

His legacy, often ranks him among the world's top personalities of all time having the greatest influence, along with his teacher Aristotle.[7][8]

I can suggest a rewrite if someone with the authority to edit the article will help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B01D:F0C7:2811:3706:DE79:1A64 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2015

In the article, "Alexander the Great", under section "Conquest of the Persian Empite", and under subsection "The Levant and Syria," there is a grammatical error. The text states "Darius offered all territory as a far the Euphrates… a colossal ransom of 30,000 talents for his family…invited to marry his eldest daughter.", while it should say "Darius offered all territory as far as the Euphrates… a colossal ransom of 30,000 talents for his family…invited to marry his eldest daughter." I request that this be changed, or that I will be allowed to make this change, thank you. AlmostEccentric (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Name meaning, this should be added

"Alexander the Great, meaning of his name in Arbi is Al-Sikander." This should be added. Iamkingkhan (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Arabic? Why would we have his name in Arabic, since he wasn't Arab? His role in Arabic lore is mentioned in the section "In ancient and modern culture". Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Main Image?

What happened to the main image of this article? It was from the Alexander mosaic. Please either replace it or use one of the good Alexander sculptures such as this one:

https://srxa.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/alexander-the-great.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.79 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Please change 9.1 Hellenistic Kingdoms subsection, 2nd paragraph, last line.

Original: "Taking advantage of this, Chandragupta Maurya (referred to in Greek sources as "Sandrokottos"), of relatively humble origin, took control of the Punjab, and with that power base proceeded to conquer the Nanda Empire."

Suggested edit: "Taking advantage of this, Chandragupta Maurya (referred to in Greek sources as "Sandrokottos"), of relatively humble origin, took control of the Punjab, and with that power base proceeded to conquer the Maurya Empire."

Saransh.Agrawal93 (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - The Maurya Empire "was founded in 322 BCE by Chandragupta Maurya, who had overthrown the Nanda Dynasty" - Arjayay (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)