Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander the Great/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a major topic, and a significant article, so I expect this review will take some time. I will look over it over the next few days, and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be leaving some initial comments in the next couple of days. SilkTork *^YES! 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'd prefer an in-depth GA review. Just as a forward warning, I might take a few days to respond to feedback due to the Christmas period. Thanks for undertaking this review; I know it's a big topic! Aeonx (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will get to this soon. Just been busy with Christmas/New Years. Aeonx (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Check list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Too much on death

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• Some high quality images. The images meet GA criteria, though layout will need to be looked into as some are sandwiching text, and there may be more images than are neccessary. SilkTork *^YES! 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why does the first sentence assert that Alexander was a Greek king of Macedonia? I understand that there has been dispute over the Greekness of the Macedonians for thousands of years, and I am expecting that to be dealt with within the article, however it seems confrontational to make such a formal statement in the first sentence, as well as being grammatically and logically unsound. It makes it appear as though Macedonia was a country of ethnic Macedonians conquered and ruled by a Greek. The simple statement is that he was a king of Macedonia. A short statement regarding the connection of Macedonia to the rest of the Greek states would be appropriate - such as "...was a king of Macedonia, a northern Greek kingdom." SilkTork *^YES! 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, "He is the most celebrated member of the Argead dynasty", doesn't seem the most notable of his achievements. SilkTork *^YES! 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

*The consensus in Academia is that Alexander was Greek*. I know it might seem superfluous to state, just as stating that 'Plato' was a greek person might be. The difference here is that modern-day nationalists from RoM (Republic of Macedonia) attempt to discount the Greekness of Alexander and the Ancient Macedonians due to some attempts to trace their lineage back to these peoples, which is of course, an impossible task, as any attempt to make such a statement is patently false. Over 350 classical scholars support this view. See http://macedonia-evidence.org/... This article has stated that alexander was a Greek King in the lead for months (or years). It must be changed back as soon as possible. SilkTork's own opinions, or any other editor here for that matter, do not supersede those of Academia , and legitimate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is very good, though - inevitably, given the size and complexity of the topic and article - it doesn't quite cover all the contents. The lead is the most common initial failing in a GA review as many editors feel that the lead is an introduction, though WP:Lead indicates that it should be a short, standalone article which summarises all the main points of the article. SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• On glancing through the article it appears that it has been decided not to deal with the Greekness of Alexander/Macedonia. Is there a reason for this - or have I missed where it is discussed? SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm reading through to check broad coverage, and the article seems well organised, with an intelligent selection of detail which matches other sources I'm using for comparison, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. I have some minor questions though - why is Alexander's visit to Troy not mentioned? why no mention of how Alexander set up the governance of Asia Minor (other than saying Caria was governed by Ada)? why no mention of his treatment of Greek mercenaries he captured? These are aspects of his career that are frequently mentioned. I understand there is limited space, and so choices need to be made as to what to include. I just like to hear the rationale for those choices. If it's a question of space, I'd like to hear why the decision was made to have two large quotes from Plutarch, much of which is already contained in the main body. I haven't finished working through the article, though my feeling is that the article is likely to meet broad coverage and focus with minor (or no) work - quite impressive considering the size and complexity of the topic. SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Diodorus Siculus, Library XVIII, 4 is a dead link. SilkTork *^YES! 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This useful tool shows a few other problematic links. SilkTork *^YES! 17:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• There have been various minor layout issues, though I've been dealing with a few as I've been reading. The article was (still is) a bit cluttered, with sometimes too many images and quote boxes squeezing the text, and that is combined with some sub-sections being rather small. The choice of where to create sections, the names of the sections, and then the decision as to when to sub-section, and the most appropriate way of doing that, is worth discussing. The use of the ; wikicode to create a definition list for sections such as Possible causes, is worth considering. Also, if the subsections are to be hidden from the table of contents, one must question part of their value. SilkTork *^YES! 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've used ; in Possible causes as an example. SilkTork *^YES! 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• There sometimes appears to be an authorial voice in the article - "it is scarcely surprising that allegations of foul play have been made about the death of Alexander"; "Alexander's personality is well described by the ancient sources"; "This was no doubt in part due to his tutelage by Aristotle"; "Alexander's most obvious legacy was the introduction of Macedonian rule to huge new swathes of Asia". These are examples - there are others. Where a statement appears to be making an opinion, it should be supported by the reliable source voicing such an opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"the resistance was useless, as the city was razed to the ground amid great bloodshed" - a little dramatic for an encyclopedic entry. SilkTork *^YES! 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• The coverage is mostly first class - very well judged amount of detail in most places. I am wondering, though, if a little too much space is given to the death, and the possible causes. Good for a book on the man, but too much for an entry in a general encyclopaedia. SilkTork *^YES! 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Most sources on Alexander mention his skills and reputation as a commander. His strategies are still taught. As such, it would be appropriate to mention that prominently and early in the lead, and to have a section explaining why he is regarded as such a good general. From Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"As a general Alexander is among the greatest the world has known. He showed unusual versatility both in the combination of different arms and in adapting his tactics to the challenge of enemies who commanded novel forms of warfare—the Saka nomads, the Indian hill tribes, or Porus with his elephants. His strategy was skillful and imaginative, and he knew how to exploit the chances that arise in every battle and may be decisive for victory or defeat; he also drew the last advantage from victory by relentless pursuit. His use of cavalry was so effective that he rarely had to fall back upon his infantry to deliver the crushing blow." SilkTork *^YES! 23:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done as far as the lede is concerned. I had added something to that effect a while back, but it was removed without any explanation. Athenean (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On hold 14 days

This is a very impressive and admirable article, which has managed to convey the central facts of Alexander the Great in a lucid and readable manner. The details have, on the whole, been very well selected and presented, and all those involved have to be commended on achieving that. There are, of course, areas which can be tidied up or at least talked about.

• Build lead per WP:Lead to cover more fully then contents of the article. Present the information in a slightly different way, so Alexander's main achievements are foregrounded, and more questionable information is removed or presented later.

• Check prose for statements that appear to convey some form of opinion or dramatic writing.

• Tighten section on death.

• Tidy the short sub-sections, and smooth out layout issues

• Introduce section on generalship.

• Check and update links

• Consider providing more detail on the Asia Minor conquest

• Consider dealing with the controversy regarding Alexander's Greekness.

I'll put this on hold for an initial 14 days to allow the above matters to be addressed, and to allow me to finish my background reading. If everything gets sorted before the 14 days then I'll close this before then and list as a GA. While there may be some little niggles to be sorted, in general this is a very decent article and should get listed. I'll inform related WikiProject and significant contributors. SilkTork *^YES! 23:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A few additional comments

I didn't pass thoroughly through all aspects, but, taking advantage of SilkTork gentle invitation I decided to drop bye. In my opinion there are at the moments some difficulties. To begin with the very start the footnote galore at "Greek" is just horrible; not only 17 footnotes, but most don't even have the needed page number. My advice is to reduce the footnotes there to no more than five selecting the most high quality ones. Much more important, this article seems to have forgot some key rules regarding WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Frankly, I'm a bit shocked by the amount of paragraphs that are supported only by primary sources, which in an article like this, where the amount of scholarly literature is utterly immense, should not happen. This is also because it's only through a secondary source we will know if the specific passage from an ancient author is notable and how much it is reliable (in particular, it's quite well known that Plutarch isn't very trustworthy). Also, some secondary sources may have difficulties passing the RS threshold here, at least certainly Will Durrant (and his work is 1939, not 1966), Greece.org, britannica, and to a lesser degree, Livius.org; on a topic like this scholarly sources or well known biographies should be preferred, IMO. A possibly acritical view of the sources can emerge if we take for example see "At Persepolis, Alexander stared at the crumbled statue of Xerxes and decided to leave it on the ground." this passge is cited by Plutarch and Hammond it is said, but Hammond's interpretation is at the very least skeptical of its historic truth. Another point worth noticing is how weak the "sources" section is; it should at least try to briefly define the chain of the transmission of sources (in this context, it is sort of surprising that the name of Cleitarchus is absent).Aldux (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I must agree; the ancient sources on Alexander the Great are unusually poor. Most of them (which survive) were written three or four centuries after his death; and none of them (except arguably Arrian) ever intended to be what we consider history. (Other sources did exist once, and it is an academic exercise to trace where surviving source X may be drawn from the lost memoirs of Y.)
• There are an innumerable quantity of modern secondary sources; they tend to represent points of view (was Alexander working for World Peace? was he an adolescent homicidal maniac?), but that can best be dealt with by extruding the conjectural claims. They are generally fairly close on what actually happened, which should be the chief focus of this article.
• The whole entry on Alexander as a Greek (and the spelling of Chalcidike) are symptoms of a Demotic Greek nationalist at work; they are not marks of a good article, and should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments about the GA nomination (or an attempt for a peer-review)

Although mainly retired from Wikipedia, I was attracted by this GA nomination. Alexander is a personally always captured me, and I would love to see this article upgraded. Reading the article, and reading some of the comments above, these are my remarks:

• The lead is not bad, although sometimes it seems a bit repetitive and slightly confusing. His virtues as a general are treated in the first paragraph of the lede ("Alexander was known to be undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time"), and then again at the last paragraph ("He became the measure against which generals, even to this day, compare themselves and military academies throughout the world still teach his tactical exploits"). Why? Two sentences saying the same thing in two different paragraphs of the same unit (the lede).
• Again the lede: "Although he is mostly remembered for his vast conquests, Alexander's lasting legacy was not his reign, but the cultural diffusion his conquests engendered." "Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and culture in the east resulted in a new Hellenistic culture, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire until the mid-15th century." Two sentences treating the same issue (cultural aspects of Alexander's campaigns) one after the other, but in two different paragraphs, as if they do not belong to the same unit in terms of meaning and sructure. Wrong structure IMO.
• "was a Greeki[›] king of Macedonia": I will agree with Sept that this is bad prose! Very bad prose! Alexander was the king of Macedonia. Full stop! The Greekness of Macedonians is another issue not belonging to this article (this is an answer to a previous question by SilkTork: This article is not the right to place in order to deal with the "Greekness" of Alexander, because the issue is not the Greekness of one person but of a nation, of the ancient Macedonians, and the article which [already] treats this issue is the ancient Macedonians article). This is bad English, and an outrageously long list of 21 (?!) citations. What for? To prove what?! The lede is full of Greekness! When we say that he was the leader of the Greek forces, and that he spread Greek civilization what else is needed? An alternative I could regard as acceptable is to right "[bla bla] was king of Macedonia and Hegemon of the Hellenic Lead". This is true and informs the reader about Alexander's will (like his father) to present himself as the leader of all Greeks (and not only of one of their kingdoms), and as such to lead the Greek forces against the Persians.
• "Alexander was born on 20 (or 21) July 356 BC,[4][5]". Just an example with the verification problems sometimes the notes present: Note 4 is a primary source with no secondary one, and Note 5 is web site (Livius), well respected of course, but can't we find any nice scholarly printed source? And why don't we "fuse" these two related notes into one? And, in any case, which is the source for the alterative date in parenthesis (21)?
• Note's 4 link links to Plutarch's Ceasar and not Alexander.
• "Alexander was a second cousin of the celebrated general Pyrrhus of Epirus, who was ranked by Hannibal as, depending on the source, either the best[9] or second-best (after Alexander)[10] commander the world had ever seen." I want to remind to the editors that this article is about Alexander and not Pyrrhus! The ranking of Pyrrhus generalship belongs to his own article; not here.
• "in exile.[18][19][20][21]". This long strings of citations are — for me at least — annoying and spread like a plague throughout the article. I don't want to advertize my work in other articles, but there are ways to avoid this problem (if you regard it as a problem, of course!).
• I think that Alexander's major role in the Battle of Chaeronea is not adequately emphasized. After all, it was one of the first times he demonstrated his strategic and tactical brillance. I believe that further analysis and more secondary sources are needed on this point.
• "Philip was then named Hegemon (often translated as 'Supreme Commander') of this league (known by modern historians as the League of Corinth). He then announced [...]" Prose problems, and not only here.
• "During the wedding banquet, a drunken Attalus made a speech praying to the gods that the union would produce a legitimate heir to the Macedonian throne. Alexander shouted to Attalus, "What am I then, a bastard?" and he threw his goblet at him. Philip, who was also drunk, drew his sword and advanced towards Alexander before collapsing, leading Alexander to say, "See there, the man who makes preparations to pass out of Europe into Asia, overturned in passing from one seat to another."" Too much detail! And especially when you have the whole text of Plutarch again next to the main prose in a box! Why do you feel the need to repeat it word by word?
• "Philip had four of Alexander's friends, Harpalus, Nearchus, Ptolemy and Erigyius exiled, and had the Corinthians bring Thessalus to him in chains." Ok with Thessalus, but what was the involvement of his other friends who were arrested to this case?
• "Alexander was proclaimed king by the Macedonian army and by the Macedonian noblemen at the age of 20." No mention to the rumors that Alexander may have played a role to his father's death. Not the most plausible version, but historians do deal with this explanation as well.
• "At the ancient Phrygian capital of Gordium, Alexander 'undid' the hitherto unsolvable Gordian Knot, a feat said to await the future "king of Asia"." You presented as an historical event, although it may well be a legend. At least, this is what prominent historians argue (see Apostolidis' comments in Droysen's History). Only later in the article, it is clarified that this is probably a "tale".
• The section "Assyria and Babylonia" is IMO too stubby. Ok with WP:SS but three lines for Gaugamela in Alexander's article is IMO completely inadequate. This is what I also believe for Tyre's siege. You say it was "famous", and the reader does not get an answer to their question: "Why?" One of the most brilliant achievements of Alexander and a monumental siege in the history of warfare needs some further analysis. In the article, you write more for Bucephalus and less for Gaugamela and Tyre! This is not logical.
• "A plot against his life was revealed, and one of his officers, Philotas, was executed for failing to bring the plot to his attention." Wasn't there also an accusation against Philotas that he was involved in the plot or am I mistaken?
• "After Alexander traveled to Ecbatana to retrieve the bulk of the Persian treasure, his closest friend and possibly lover[125] Hephaestion died of an illness, or possibly of poisoning.[126]" What do secondary sources say about the poisoning version?
• "After Aornos, Alexander crossed the Indus and fought and won an epic battle against a local ruler Porus, who ruled a region in the Punjab, in the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC." Some reference to Alexander's tactical brillance is again desperately needed. For instance, how he crossed the river, and how he faced the elephants.
• The "Possible causes" section is IMO too long. All versions could easily be summarized in one paragraph, and that's enough.
• "Testament": Do secondary sources agree about its existence? No italics needed at the end of the section per MoS.
• Personally, I would incororate "Megalomania" into "Personality". And don't you think that on this and other issues you may over-rely on Green?
• "It is possible that Alexander was simply not a highly sexed person." Do you have a source or it is OR?
• "Aspects of the Hellenistic culture were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire up until the mid-15th century." This is a repetition of the same sentence of the lead. Anything more to add?
• "In ancient and modern culture" seems stubby, and, in general, not well-worked. There is also a "citation needed" template there.
• And last but not least: Where is the section analyzing his strategic and tactical brilliance? Nowhere! And this is a major major major major problem of the article. You trim the details of his battles (and you often overdo it as I indicated); you don't have a special section on that; and then the reader does not understand reading and rereading the article why he was a great general, as you say in the lead. And this is a problem with the lead as well, which should reflect and summarize the main article. You devote in the lead two sentences on his strategic abilities; where is then the corresponding analysis in the main article?

To summarize in one word, the main problem of the article is called "balance"; it is unbalanced (and on that I disagree with SilkTork that "very well judged amount of detail in most places"). I learn many details about his quarrel with his father and his horse but not about his great battles, some of the greatest in military history; I learn a lot (maybe more than what I need!) about his sex preference, but not about why he was a great general.

Good luck to the editors of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Yannismarou - you have made some intelligent, erudite and useful comments. Everyone involved in the article will be very grateful for your excellent input. I think we agree that the article needs to be cut back in certain areas and built up in others. I do feel though, that on the whole, for a general encyclopaedia, the article deals mostly quite decently with the overview of of Alexander's life and campaigns. This is a fairly big topic - it's a level 3 Vital article, one of the 1,000 most important topics. Such topics are difficult to do well, and - while there are flaws which people will attend to as part of the ongoing development of the article - it's important to recognise what has been achieved, and to give people a pat on the back. This article rivals the Encyclopaedia Britannica's online article in terms of selection and presentation of information. That said, though, I think all your comments and suggestions should be attended to. They are not all needed for the article to meet GA standards, as the criteria is not as exacting as for FA, but they are all useful. SilkTork *^YES! 17:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, excellent peer-review. It's good to see you back, Yanni. I will try to help over the next few days in the limited ways that I can... Athenean (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia - Macedon

...One quick question to everyone: Since most English speakers associate the term "Macedonia" with the new country, would "...was a king of the ancient kingdom of Macedon" be ok? After all, the article begins with "Alexander of Macedon...". Athenean (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, what matters is to stick to whatever choice you make. Because now I read in the lede about "Alexander king of Macedonia", and somewhere in the article about "Philip of Macedon". Consistency is what matters IMO.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to "Macedon" per the consistency argument. I will try to implement some of your other suggestions in the coming days. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I like consistency. Where I'm curious is that Macedon redirects to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Which name should it be? It's useful to have consistency between as well as within articles. Or is this leading to some long-standing name dispute? Also, as there is some question of confusion, might it be appropriate to briefly identify where Macedon is, or what it was. SilkTork *^YES! 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about the use of the name - this one appears the most helpful. I agree it's good to have one name and stick with it, though if there are going to be queries and questions and possible edit wars, it might be worth having a discussion before deciding on which name to use - particularly when there has been a previous discussion which decided the other way round! Added to this, is a list of Alexander's wives which use places as part of the name - Roxana of Bactria, Stateira II of Persia, Parysatis II of Persia, but which link to articles in which the places are not given as part of their names. I don't want to get bogged down in this, and I don't fully understand all the issues - I just don't want there to be hasty decisions made on this article which conflict with considered decisions made on another article. Having looked at GoogleBooks, I see that Macedon is sometimes used and Macedonia is sometimes used. Would it be awkward or inelegant to use an initial wording which made readers aware there are two alternative names for the same place? "...was a king of Macedon or Macedonia, a state in the north eastern region of Greece [or Ancient Greece]" SilkTork *^YES! 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both names are correct; Macedon is the Greek, Macedonia the Latin, form; as often, English tends to Latinize, as being closer to English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I had a feeling both would be acceptable. SilkTork *^YES! 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Greekness

I noted above that I felt a section on the controversy regarding Alexander's Greekness might be appropriate. I am wondering now if the Lineage and childhood section would deal adequately enough with his nationality to cover the question. I hope it might, though I have doubts as when I have read about Alexander previously, there has been issues surrounding his attitude toward the Greeks, especially as they often fought against him as mercenaries, and there seemed to be a difference in attitude toward Macedonians and Greeks. Two books I have just picked up from my local library both deal with the "Greek question". Paul Cartledge devotes a chapter to it, while Ian Worthington opens with it, but more in relation to the question of Macedonians as a whole, rather than specifically Alexander. However, as two source books mention it, I am wondering if this article could deal with it a little more boldly. I have read Yannismarou's view that "the issue is not the Greekness of one person but of a nation", and would welcome other opinions. SilkTork *^YES! 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I repeat that I disagree with the addition of a section concerning Alexander's "Greekness". As I said, the issue is not the "nationality" of a person, but of a whole people, the ancient Macedonians, and their relation with the rest of the Greeks. And, when we speak about "Greekness", what do we mean exactly in an era, when national identity did not have the meaning it has today? If we mean the relations of ancient Macedonians with the other ancient Greeks, then the article treats the issue, when it speaks about Alexander's will (like his father) to become leader of the Amphictyonic League, and to lead an army against the Persians as hegemon of all Greeks. The article also treats the issue in the section "Hellenization", when it explains how Alexander (intentionally or unintentionally is another issue) spread the Greek culture. Or when it explains Macedonia's complex relations with the other Greek kingdoms or city-states, which led to the destruction of Thebes, the Battle of Chaeronea, the creation of the Hellenic League etc. All these issues are treated and analyzed in the article. Do some of these topics need reorganization and expansion? I said yes, and I repeat that. Do we need a section about his "Greekness"? I believe no, since we do not even know what this means! We need no theoritical and fruitless analyses about modern terms we created, in order to describe some things we do not fully understand. We need of course to speak about his volatile relations with the other Greeks, his education, his contribution to the creation of the Hellenistic Era etc. etc. But all the material is already there, and just needs some "professional" tweaks here and there. I personally feel more fruitful to discuss about sections that the article really lucks, such as why he was a great general. Additionally, based on my experience in such areas, I am afraid that such a section will inevitably open the doors for POV-pushing and edit-wars by various sides. A "Greekness" section is by definition controversial, and we'll get controversy with no parallel substantial gains for the article. I am afraid that we'll trap once again ourselves in an endless debate around a term ("Greekness"), which did not exist at Alexander's time, when "nationality" was understood in a different way, which we do not fully understand, and which fails to describe the complexity of the relations of Alexander's era. Finally, I admit I have a difficulty to fully understand the term "boldly". What's not treated right now "boldly" as regards the "Greekness" question? What is missing exactly, that makes such a section so necessary? As I said, I believe basically everything is there concerning the topic "Alexander and the Greeks" (if we mean how he felt himself about his nationality, unfortunately we have no written words of his saying "I feel" or "I feel not Greek"!). In two words, I thing the best way to deal with Alexander's "Greekness" is to let his life speak for itself, presented comprehensively and nicely written, and let each reader make their conclusions for themselves. I may be wrong, but honestly that is how I would approach the article if I decided to re-write it in order to upgrade it, trying to be "objective" during this effort (as objective can a Greek be, when writing about Alexander!).--Yannismarou (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yannismarou here, a "Greekness" section would open a whole can of worms and would cause more problems that it would solve. Moreover, the issue is best discussed in Ancient Macedonians, not in this article. Athenean (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined toward the view that there is already discussion about Alexander's "Greekness" in the Lineage and childhood section, and that other aspects of Alexander's relationship to matters Greek is present in the article. However, as I am aware that reliable sources do specifically comment on the issue, and I suspect that some general readers may come to Wikipedia to get a summary of the views on that matter (not about the Greekness of Macedonia, but about Alexander himself), having a brief section on the matter, perhaps under the title "Relationship with the Greeks", might be more appropriate than not having one. I understand the argument that such a section might be a target for edit warring; and while Wikipedia doesn't censor itself, or shy away from controversy, there is no need to go around waving red flags if it can be avoided. I can see both sides of the arguement - a)It's all already there, so no need to be provocative and b)A specific summary of the issue would be useful for those who don't wish to spend an hour or more reading and analying the whole article - and it's an aspect of reliable sources on Alexander. I'd like to hear more views. SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two contesting fringe theories: that Alexander was Greek (whatever that means); that he was not Greek (whatever that means). Both involve an analysis of the foundation legend of the ancient Macedonian state, about the youngest of three brothers and a sunbeam - and other equally dubious evidence. Reliable modern sources will tend to avoid both, except to note in passing that the ancient sources divide Alexander's armies and generals into "Greeks" (Hellenes) and "Macedonians" (Makedones), and that contemporary evidence (such as there is) is colored - in both directions - by the campaign of Alexander's father to be accepted as Greek. Since both fringe views happen to be of political importance this decade in the Southern Balkans, we have editors who insist on putting one or the other in anywhere it can be jammed into place. Let's have as little as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Although we do agree on the conclusion, I don't think I fully agree with Sept as regards the term "fringe" and its use. I may have not read on the issue as many books as Sept does, but I do watch tv, and History Channel! Well, in a recent documentary about Alexander's campaign in India (in "BATTLES BC"), all the historians who spoke (I think they were 5 of them; all of them Americans) only used the term "Greek" for both Alexander and his army. I heard the word "Greek" about 20 times, and the word "Macedonian" only one! Were they all of them fringe and politically motivated? And they are not in the Balkans by the way ...--Yannismarou (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But it's 99-1 that they don't edit Wikipedia; it is also somewhere close to 99-1 that they are more careful in writing than in the non-peer-reviewed and extremely brief medium of TV - with a side bet to cover the possibility that they are not classicists at all, but sociologists, "military historians" or Surveyors of the Universe like the unfortunate Edward Luttwak. Simply explaining "Macedon" would be five minutes of time spent off-topic, presuming the program began with the descent from the Hindu Kush; whereas the audience thinks they know what "Greece" is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 370 classical scholars from around the world can clarify things a bit... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that these BATTLES BC historians do not edit Wikipedia is maybe something positive for them;for sure, their abstention from Wikipedia makes them more credible in my eyes! Anyway, even if I accept that all of them were Luttwak-like historians, I still disagree strongly with your opinion that the scholars who believe that Alexander (and the ancient Macedonians in general) was Greek constitute a "fringe" theory. The bibliography speaks for itself. But I do intend to keep my disagreement with you on the talk page, insisting on the opinion I expressed in the beginning of this thread. When I re-wrote the article about Pericles, I did not feel the need to "prove" that he was ancient Greek or to explicitely mention it in the lead. The history and, in our "Wikipedian" case, the history "confined" into an encyclopedic article speaks for itself. This (should) happen with Alexander's (and any other) article as well. The facts are there, and the reader who is inquisitive will get the incentives he/she needs to make her/his own research. And the job of a good article is to give him these incentives. After all, you said, Sept, that Alexander's father organized a campaign in order to be accepted as Greek. This is enough for me! If somebody wants to be regarded as Greek and even organizes a whole campaign to achieve it, I don't need to add anything else in Philip's article. I'll just refer to the fact, and that's it ...--Yannismarou (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander's father organized a campaign in order to be accepted as Greek. So did Nero. Was he Greek? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An unlucky comparison; Philip was Greek, while Nero wanted to be Greek. N. G. L. Hammond, expert on Macedon: "Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian"... (Philip of Macedon, Duckworth Publishing, February 1998) A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still interested in Yannis's opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to answer anything to your question. Nero is simply irrelevant. But, I really feel the need to repeat what I said earlier: We trie to explain situations of the past with tools of the present, which is wrong. The meaning of "Greek" was different from today's meaning of the same word. Because there was no coherent Greek conscience in the ancient Greek world. It is not strange that Demosthenes called the Macedonians barbarians, and the same did Thucydides for other Greeks (beyond the slightest doubt!), the Aetolians, who resided just a few kilometres from Corinth! But what does this mean? What is the final conclusion of this series of thoughts (if we accept this rationale)? That true ancient Greeks were only the Athenians? Following this rationale, I declare that the Dorians were no Greeks! They had significant differences in terms of culture, language (a different dialect), social organisation etc. etc. from the Ionians, and I thus believe now that we should not accept them as real Greeks. Of course no discussion for the Macedonians, the Thessalians, the Molossians etc. etc. I told you: only the Athenians were true Greeks!

It's clear that I do not actually espouse the above conclusion, and that this line of thoughts is wrong. Because we cannot exclude from what we call "ancient Greek World" people, like the Macedonians who definitely constituted a part of the ancient Greek civilization, culture etc. Of course, there were differences between the various tribes, people, states etc. etc. But this does not mean that I'll accept a restrictive approach which is clearly wrong. Anyway, I don't feel that I have to prove anything. The scholars' community has in its majority a quite clear approach. As a matter of fact, I was impressed when I read some comments from archaelogists of the Louvre Museum, who said, on the occasion of an exhibition about Alexander, that most people in France know that Alexander was a Greek; but not that he was a Macedonian as well!

In any case, all these discussions with Sept and the other editors (which I really enjoy, despite our obvious differences) are theoritical, and a bit irrelevant. And they cannot obscure the main problem here: that some weeks after the nomination of the article I see nobody interested in seriously working on it; neither the nominator nor anybody else. Only Silk Tork shows a sincere willingness to help, and he is the reviewer! What do other users do? As I see in the article's edit history, they continue (at least, some of them) to care only about the word "Greek" in the lead. This is what they regard as the main issue in the article! And this is IMO a clear indication of their limited knowledge about the article they decide to edit. Moreover, this is a clear indication that there is no user with the eagerness, background and writing skills, who intends to seriously work on the article. Until then, we'll watch the word "Greek" leave and come back numerous times — and the real drama is that these users, focusing on this (nonsentic) issue, believe that they are occupied with something serious and important! The do not realize that this is not the essence! Unfortunately, until the moment that the editors (occasional or not) will understand where the real issues lie, I'm afraid that we'll see no real improvements in the article. Only the same vicious circles again and again and again ... Poor article, and poor Alexander who cannot have the article you deserve in Wikipedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While this review has been bubbling along I have been doing some background reading, so if nobody does step up to the plate I will make a section on Alexander's generalship (depending on who you read his success is due to luck, to his father's military skills and siege weapons, to Persian disorganisation, to almost anything but Alexander himself!, apart from Alexander's skill at leading and inspiring his men - a not inconsiderable feat, especially in taking over control of his father's generals - anyway, there are, thankfully, sources which do explain how Alexander used speed and decisiveness, and concentrated attacks in one vulnerable place, thus weakening even the largest foes). Also, I will look at a section on Alexander's relationship with the Greeks. At present I don't think there is quite enough already in the article, even without a distinct section bringing the threads together. His use (or non use, especially in battle) of Greek troops/mercenaries, his dismissal of the Athenian fleet, his treatment of captured Greek mercenaries, his later adoption of Persian customs, etc. These are items that are not just the subject of scholarship, but are part of the popular perception of Alexander.

I have always agreed with Yannismarou's view that there is quite a bit of work to do to make this a fully comprehensive article; and I accept that the tertiary sources I have consulted for similarities in structure and overview will be making decisions which will leave out some significant details; however, where I have previously felt that this article was essentially almost complete enough to meet the GA criteria of "broad coverage" (which is less than FA's "comprehensive"), I am now wondering if it will be quite "broad" enough. I will, though, have a go. Even if a GA review doesn't always end in an article being listed, the process in general does improve the article which is always a net gain. SilkTork *^YES! 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Generalship

There are a number of sources specifically on Alexander's generalship. I wouldn't expect a big, detailed section on this for GA purposes, but a decent enough start with an overview of the sort of strategies he used, and the relationship he had with his men. SilkTork *^YES! 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold 14 days

I think that while there is a bit of work to do, 14 days should be enough if people get involved and work together. I'm putting this on hold until 26 Jan. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The present wave of editing contains apple-polishing like this and this reinstatement of a piece of hero-worship cited to a tertiary source; I omit the Single Purpose Account, which is reliably reverted. The reliance on primary and tertiary sources alone would take more than two weeks to fix; the various flavors POV-pushing will take admin action, which mere national bias is unlikely to attract.

I do not see a net improvement, but will be happy to look again towards the end of the month; please remind me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have reinstated the line regarding Hephaestion being a possible lover, as that appears to be a widely held view, though I understand the reasons for the removal - the cited source was not explicit. I have put in a source - it was the first one I found that could be easily linked and read by the general reader; it may be replaced by a stronger source, though it would be appropriate to select a source that can be consulted on GoogleBooks. The line regarding Alexander being a notable general is more than appropriate - it is an essential statement that needs to be made prominently and early on in the lead. The source is first class - it is a reliable source, published by a reliable and reputable scholarly publisher and written by a highly respected military historian who is cited 220 times on Wikipedia.

I note your further comments on sourcing. I hadn't perceived the sourcing to be a particular issue, though I see that further up, Aldux has also made a comment on the use of primary sources. Is there a belief that Plutarch is a WP:Primary source? Granted he was writing a long time ago, but that a source is old, doesn't make it primary. Plutarch based his work on Alexander on other sources. Plutarch appears to be no different in that regard from a modern historian. Plutarch is writing 400 years after Alexander, so is not a contemporary. One may have questions to ask about Plutarch, and it is fully appropriate and expected that a range of sources will be used in this article in addition to Plutarch, but to omit Plutarch would be inappropriate as my understanding is that he is regarded as an important source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jona Lendering regards Plutarch as a good source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if you regard Plutarch as a secondary source, it is not a sufficient secondary source. He needs backing (at least in most cases) by more modern sources. I don't believe that we should omit Plutarch, but I also don't see anybody proposing that (Aldux absolutely correct remarks on Plutarch do not mean that he proposes his omission). I do believe, however, that he needs backing by "real" secondary sources in many occasions.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Plutarch is an unavoidable primary source. He was secondary in his own time - and he is unusual in his time for the frequency with which he cites his own sources; but by and large they are lost except for his citations and we cannot check them.
• He did not intend to write a history; the closest genre we have to the Parallel Lives is the inspirational self-help manual. This means that quite often Plutarch will choose the good story over the plausible one - and his standards of plausibility are not ours to begin with. This is a particular problem with Alexander, whom Plutarch is presenting as the model monarch; the reason to use modern secondary sources is for their judgment on what actually happened. (Was Philip killed by Pausanias? Yes. Was Alexander actually begotten by a giant snake? No. Yet Plutarch is the source for both, and the alternative sources like Justin or Diodorus are no better.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My motto when writing an arcicle is "put as many (reliable of course!) sources as you can". If Plutarch can be backed with more reliable secondary sources, this should be done. In any case, I agree on both aforementioned remarks: 1) Yes, Plutarch did not intend to write history, so whatever Lendering or anybody else may say, Plutarch is not always reliable. 2) Nevertheless, Plutarch is unavoidable, because his text is per se a very importan source, despite its deficiencies in terms of historical accuracy.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And what Lendering means is clear: Plutarch - and Arrian - are better than the echoes of Alexander's official propaganda and than the legends of the Alexander Romance of pseudo-Callisthenes. They are; that's not saying very much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all input. I think we are all in agreement. Plutarch is an important source to use, and other sources should be used as well, and if there is something contentious, a reliable modern source which can be accessed easily by the general reader is the most appropriate. If people are aware of any contentious or questionable statement that might be challenged and which is not sourced to an appropriate reliable source, then please let me know and I'll look into it. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of closing

I am aware this Review has gone on for some time with little work done. I intend to do some work myself, but haven't yet found the time. It would be inappropriate to keep this Review open endlessly, so I am giving notice that I will close the Review in seven days (6 Feb) if there has been no significant attempt to broaden the coverage in line with the comments above. Closing the Review will have little impact on the article itself, and once work has been done to improve broad coverage, the article can be nominated again. SilkTork *^YES! 10:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Close as fail

Closing as fail. Lack of broad coverage. I still have some library books here, so I have a firm intention to find the time and motivation to do some work on this article. I am just coming into a bit of spare time, so might be able to focus on this shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 11:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander was at least bisexual.

Why is that side of him being downplayed so blatantly and completely in this article? History itself is kept by heterosexuals who would love to erase any evidence of accepted homosexuality. The fact that any evidence of his long and well documented homosexual relationship with Hephaestion exists at all is a testament to it's truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.14.149 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this is your POV, unless you have a reliable source to backup your claim. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bisexuality (as in a sexual orientation or identity, not a behaviour) is not the same as homosexuality, and not generally seen as a subcategory. Not to mention that nobody even thought of in such categories before the 20th century. Fixed sexual orientations that people identitified with in the modern sense simply did not exist at the time. Homosexual behaviour, especially in the form called pederasty, in history was something entirely different from the modern concept of homosexuality. Alexander was neither heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, nor anything else -sexual or -phile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref fix

Could someone fix the reference 188? I can't figure out the flaw. Brandmeister t 23:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Athenean (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

grammer

Would someone please clean up the grammer in this article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.57.149 (talk • contribs)

How about the spelling too? – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Eromenos Link

Why in the part of the article which is about the personal relationships of Alexander, the word eromenos, that according to the article means beloved, is a link fto the article Pederasty in ancient Greece??? Obviously sex and love in ancient Greece did not mean exclusively pederasty. I think this link doesn't make any sense. By the way, in today's Greece we use the word eromenos with a rather sexual meaning. The greek word erotevmenos or agapimenos seems more like the english word beloved. However the ancient and the modern greek language are not exactly the same so Im not sure about the exact meaning of the word eromenos in ancient Greek. Anyway I think the link should change. It would be more reasonable if this word was a link to another article i.e. Eros or if it was not a link at all--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Pederasty in Greece was highly exagarated by the historians who wants to attract attention to themself, rather then serving the truth. As a person who came from Europe to USA, I was surprised of how much Americans are tend to see homosexual content in any friendship gestures. For example, Leonid Brezhnev traditional kiss was never viewed homosexal in ex-USSR, but here it is. Even I got a note one time from an American woman for holding hands with my Europian friend on the walk in park, that this is also can be missundestood in USA as homosexal gesture :-) Anyway, I removed this forwarding, and re-directed eromenos to world Love, which has more broad meaning. Innab (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this. If you look at the 69 articles that link to eromenos, they all refer to relationships between two men in ancient Greece (with one exception, where Eromenos is the name of a company). If you read the article on Pederasty in ancient Greece, scholars debate the extent to which the social custom of paiderasteia was sexual. This relationship can be viewed as the elder partner mentoring the younger in a friendship. It makes no sense whatever to redirect eromenos to love for those 68 articles, since the article love will tell the reader nothing about ancient Greek social customs. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked it in some Wikipedia artcles. Indeed the word eromenos seems that was used more in homosexual relationships and that most homosexual relationships were mostly relationships between men and boys. However I don't know wether the term eromenos was used only for adult-boy homosexual couples or if it was used as well for adult couples. In this case the link should change, as homosexuality does not always mean pederasty. Since I m not sure, I will not call. Fold!--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that "homosexuality" is not the issue; that is, the sexual behavior between the two men is not necessarily what defines the relationship between the erastes and the eromenos, which in some cases might have been what we would call "mentoring," or a friendship. The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece does not provide the kind of detailed explanation of the term eromenos that is found at Pederasty in ancient Greece#Terminology. I think if you actually read the article Pederasty in ancient Greece, you'll see that preconceptions about modern pederasty are dealt with, and the article explains the difference between that and ancient Greek paiderasteia, including the fact that the age difference in some cases may have been minimal. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection: at one time, eromenos and erastes each had its own article, I think, that was reduced to a redirect. Restoring such an article might be one way to deal with this, so that a single article could be directly linked to that would explain the full range of meanings in ancient Greece and scholarly discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Under "Indian campaign" sub-heading "Invasion of the Indian subcontinent" in the second paragraph, the sentence:

"Alexander then faced the Assakenoi, who fought put up stubborn resistance to Alexander in the strongholds of Massaga, Ora and Aornos."

Should either have the words AND + A added, or FOUGHT removed and A added, as below:

"Alexander then faced the Assakenoi, who fought AND put up A stubborn resistance to Alexander in the strongholds of Massaga, Ora and Aornos."

OR

"Alexander then faced the Assakenoi, who __ put up A stubborn resistance to Alexander in the strongholds of Massaga, Ora and Aornos."

Uc404s (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Unclear what has been done from long list of specifics left from last review. Long and extremely interesting article and subject. Major issue not addressed right now that will take some much time from a collaborative effort of several people like prose, references and while the images are not bad, some have little encyclopedic value. Quick decline with the intention to cover issues from last review and talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Very disappointing. If it is not clear what has been done from the previous review, that is not a failing on the article's part. Neither the prose, nor the references, nor the images are such that a quick fail is warranted. I also note that many of your copyedits were in fact unhelpful and introduced factual errors in the article. I am planning to renominate and ask that someone else review it. Athenean (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does need work. However, as far as Alexander being Greek and a King, this is an article on Alexander the Great. He inherited his fathers Kingdom, therefore, he would be King. He ruled Greece. I would say he is a King. Alexander the I proved he was of Argive descent and allowed to compete in the Olympics. If Alexander I is Greek, then Alexander the Great would be Greek. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Master of the universe"

Grimal uses the exact words "Master of the Universe." The exact quote from that book is:

"The oracle of Amun then recognized Alexander as the new Master of the Universe" - Nicolas Grimal, A History of Egypt, p.382, Wiley-Blackwell, 1994

Per WP:PSTS, we stick to what professional non-primary sources say, instead of original research into primary sources by editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I am also concerned about the other large-scale deletions because this is a GA and should not be altered so drastically without consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@JohnTMa: do you have any non-primary sources from mainstream academic publishers that argue that Grimal is inaccurate in that description? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this the correct way to answer someone on talk ? The problem is that Grimal is not a specialist of Alexander the Great. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, Cambridge, 1988, 71-4, gives a long description of the consultation of the oracle. No "master of the universe" there, but exactly what the sources say: possible greeting as "zson of Zeus". JohnTMa (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

In fact, that would be a far better reference-- to a book on Alexander by one of the specialists-- rather than an extract from a general history of Egypt by an Egyptolo JohnTMa (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

It also makes clear that in fact, we don't really know what happened at Siwah. Robin Lane Fox's book also gives a long description, and reconstructs what went on at Siwah--questions about what gods to sacrifice to, and paternity. JohnTMa (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

If others approve of it, I will not object to its replacement. Most editors whose early actions are to remove sourced information usually do not want to bring in replacement sources, so do pardon the initial resistance. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand, indeed. Was trying to put in edits as a series of changes, We'll see what others think. Could you please restore the version without Grimal, and without the "master of the universe" ? That's really hyperbolic, and it's inaccurate, as I think my reference to Bosworth shows. JohnTMa (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

There are other historians who refer to Alexander as the Master of the Universe. I don't think this is as simple as one mistaken historian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so-- it's almost certainly Grimal, in hyperbolical mode, trying to unpack what, for an Egyptian audience, being son of Amun might have meant. There are no historians (professional, modern) who refer to Alexander as MotU, and certainly none of the modern accounts of Alexander who say that that was what he heard at Siwah. Ammon might have prophesized something about world conquest, but even that is very moot. 192.76.8.33 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

But Bosworth says the following:

<ref name="Bosworth1996">{{cite book|author=A. B. Bosworth|title=Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1iiiKhCqgv8C&pg=PA104|year=1996|publisher=Clarendon Press|isbn=978-0-19-814991-0|page=104|quote=In his remorse, so Anaxarchus maintained, the king has adopted the posture of a slave, contradicting his real status as master of the universe.}}</ref>

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what's going on in this debate, but it looks to me as if our article claims (or at least implies) that the oracle of Ammon called Alexander the master of the universe. That appears to be false. In the citation that Dr. K gives us just above, Bosworth is not discussing the oracle, but a conversation that happened after the death of Cleitus. This passage shouldn't be used to comment on what happened at Siwa. Moreover, it doesn't look like Bosworth is taking the phrase "master of the universe" from the Greek passages he cites (Arrian, Plutarch)--it's an elaboration, not an actual translation of something in an ancient source. So there's no good reason from this cite to say that ancients called him the "master of the universe"...what would the Greek for that be, anyway? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write that the ancients said anything about him. I wrote that "He was considered master of the universe" based on the direct quote by Bosworth above. It may well be Bosworth's elaboration but Bosworth claims that that was Alexander's status. I could remove it from that section if you are worried about any connotations and attribute it to Bosworth directly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If "He was considered master of the universe" doesn't refer to the ancients' perception of Alexander, why put it in the article? That's surely what's implied by its current placement in the text; what's more, since it's in a section about the oracle of Ammon, the text implies that the oracle called him that. If you just want the article to say that Bosworth considered him the master of the universe, the sentence would have to be rewritten; but that's a bad idea, because when Bosworth writes that phrase, he's summarizing a speech by Anaxarchus. Bosworth does not say that he, personally, thinks that Alexander was master of the universe. (This discussion is really crying out for a He-Man picture, isn't it?) And, as far as I can see, the Greek that most corresponds to this is Plutarch reporting that Anaxarchus said οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀλέξανδρος, εἰς ὃν ἡ οἰκουμένη νῦν ἀποβλέπει· (Here is Alexander, upon whom the whole world now looks...) This is not good evidence that the ancients called him master of the universe, and it's not good evidence that Bosworth thinks Alexander was master of the universe either... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of this rebuttal is misplaced. First, I wrote above that I would remove the passage from the section of the oracle. I also didn't say that Bosworth considers him Master of the Universe. My new edit describes Bosworth's comment as "Bosworth describes Alexander's status, during the time of the killing of Cleitus, as "master of the universe". which I think is an accurate description. As far as the reference to He-Man, that's an unfortunate anachronism which has contributed to the bad reputation of the description. I think that Bosworth did not come up with the description out of thin air, and as such it is worthy of inclusion in the article even as the educated estimation by a historian of Alexander's status. We also have the description by Grimal which corroborates Bosworth, but that reference also has been dismissed. It is obvious you disagree but I have wasted enough time on this to defend it further. You are free to revert my edit if you wish. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that Anaxarchos passage is relevant to the murder of Kleitos at Samarkhand in 328, not to the consultation of the oracle in 332. Akhilleus' summary above is absolutely accurate: Bosoworth is unpacking Anaxarchos' summary of an argument made during a crisis; I will modify to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTMa (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth giving the sentence just before the sentence Dr K quotes, in Bosworth, Alexander and the East, p. 104:

"Justification at a more abstract, moral level was provided by the philosopher Anaxarchus, who chose an ostentatiously sarcastic and provocative address"

--hardly evidence that Anaxarchus considered Alexander "master of the universe". JohnTMa (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)JohnTMa

The article in the French-language Wiki is excellent

I would recommend a glance at the French-language article on "Alexandre le Grand"-- excellent, notably because it is far more detailled, rich, and well structured with dates, than the English-language version right now (3 May 2015). The English-language version is cluttered (I took out some hyperbole), and oddly shaped, probably because it was fought over a lot. If you want to get precise info with dates, riht now the French-language article is a better bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.123.136 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Alexander came from Macedon, a place so far from the center of Greek culture as to be almost out of it. This prompted him to be as Greek as was possible. Throughout the item, u've never mentioned his troops nor the tactics involved....his toops were free men, depending upon slaves such as Homer. As free men, they developed a very strong cameraderie. Plus, they had the long spear and rectangular shield, from which was developed the phalanx, which could be converted into a testudo or tortoise to withstand attacks from arrows. It was a world-beating arrangement copied by the Romans. It's the phalanx which gave the world to Alex the Great. It'd even defeat an elephant. A great soldier is no greater than the soldiers whom he leads. 82.69.73.5 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, you must have reliable sources. Kharkiv07^Talk 18:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Typo Needs Fixing

The fourth sentence in the first paragraph under the heading "Egypt" reads "However, at Alexander met with resistance at Gaza." The "at" should be removed. Once this is fixed, this Talk subject can be removed as well.

• Done. Kyriakos (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

hi 121.218.43.90 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Grayfell (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015

79.107.162.216 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC) remake again the correct sentence: was a king (basileus) of the ancient GREEK kingdom of MACEDON.not just king of ancient kingdom of macedon.he was king of the ancient G R E E K kingdom of Macedon

Heavy censorship by biased pro-Greek editors

• Alexander the Great was himself infatuated with and admired Cyrus the Great, from an early age reading Xenophon's Cyropaedia, which described Cyrus's heroism in battle and governance and his abilities as a king and a legislator. During his visit to Pasargadae he ordered Aristobulus to decorate the interior of the sepulchral chamber of his tomb.

- Source Alexander the Great by Ulrich Wilcken (page 146).

• This article is a typical eurocentrist version of ancient history. Ignoring Achaemenid Persian Empire, Persian king Cyrus and their influences on Alexander. Almost every serious historian is aware of this fact. But ohhh... Sorry... Alexander, Greeks, and ancient Greece are symbols of Western civilization. So we must ignore eastern Persians and just portray them as evil and uncivilized enemies of West! Wikipedia version of 300. BS. --188.159.241.147 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to get angry in this manner and say things like that. If you can provide me with the title of the work and the year published, I would be happy to add this information to the article. Athenean (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Lacks reference to Kalyan Muni

This article lacks reference to Kalyan Muni (or Kalanos), a Digambar Jain Muni from Taxila who accompanied Alexander to his journey back. Alexander the Great, died on his way back to Greece in his Ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on Alexander's movements in 324 is incorrect-- should be changed.

Alexander visited Pasargadai and Persepolis (seeing the tomb of Cyrus, executing Orxines, etc) BEFORE the mutiny at Opis. The text as it reads now is incorrect. Source: end of Arrian 6. Edit: i have no idea how to get rid of the links to various jain etc sites that appear at the foot of this short note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTMa (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexander

King of India & Scythia.

ASG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.234.25.143 (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alexander the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130730185533/http://www.bpatc.org.bd/elibrary/files/1271169473ALEXANDERTHEGREAT.pdf to http://www.bpatc.org.bd/elibrary/files/1271169473ALEXANDERTHEGREAT.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120819050341/http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol12/number2/pdf/jwsr-v12n2-tah.pdf to http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol12/number2/pdf/jwsr-v12n2-tah.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

Djhaque (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) he is a first European to attack in India.</ref></ref>

Not clear what should be edited, nor a source for the information provided. Declining. Thanks. --Legion fi (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexander the Great's Illyrian origin

Many historians worldwide and many sources support an Albanian origin. Also Plutarch and other historians say that his grandmother was Ilyrian. Why shouldn't we add it. Usuiko (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That is terribly false; Many historians worldwide and many sources support an Albanian origin is not true and Sirras' origin is still debated.--Zoupan 08:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I meant Illyrian. Usuiko (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong quotation in "Personal relationships" section

Could someone please correct the quote in the section "Personal relationships"? The material found in the article text is not the same as in the provided reference. The correct quote from the reference is this: "Alexander Crowned the Tomb of Achilles, and Hephæstion that of Patroclus ; signifying that he was as dear to Alexander as Patroclus to Achilles". The reference doesn't use fancy words like "garlanded" or "riddled". Whoever wrote the wikipedia text has added original research. Please correct the quotation as found in the source. Thank you. 77.4.135.177 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect dates in first section

"he invaded India in 326 BC, but was eventually forced to turn back at the demand of his troops. Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC"

"he invaded India in 326 BC... [he] died in Babylon in 323 BC"

Apparently he died 3 years before he invaded India...

BC years are Before Christ. They are counted backwards. 333 BC is followed by 332 BC, 331 BC until they reach 1 BC (the year where Christ is Born). Then we start the AD years that you are used to (1 AD, 2 AD ..... 2015 AD, 2016 AD). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)--Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gangaridai

In the "Revolt of the army" section it lists Gangaridai as part of modern day Bangladesh. That is incorrect, it belongs to Bengal region, both Bangladesh and modern day Indian state of West Bengal. Please change this incorrect info, it should be Bengal region. (2600:1001:B11F:8D92:D4BB:E2B8:58C4:48A6 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alexander the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151231190702/https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great to https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alexander the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151231190702/https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great to https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2016

77.28.211.204 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Alexandar the great was an Macedonien lider from 336 to 323 BC.After the deth of his father Philep II hi was king.He first batteld the reble Greeks then set seal to Persija.He wan the battle in Granik then in Issos and in Gargamel and he made the grate macedonien kindom

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. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

False info in first paragraph (India)

In the first paragraph it says: 'He spent most of his ruling years on an unprecedented military campaign through Asia and northeast Africa, and by the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from Greece to Egypt into northwest India and modern-day Pakistan.'

This is factually incorrect as Alexander never entered the territory of what is now India. The furthest east he went was Pakistan, taking the cities of Sagala (present day Sialkot) and Patala (present day Thatta). Alexander's empire thus stretched east to 'Pakistan' or the 'Indus valley', but it definitely never incorporated any parts of India. It seems as though there is some misunderstanding between the ancient term 'Indus' and the modern name 'India'. Can anyone please correct this sentence.

Here's a map showing the route taken by Alexander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#/media/File:AlexanderConquestsInIndia.jpg

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiejason (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Alexander's empire reached the Hyphasis river, which is in modern-day India. --Tataryn (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

distortion of history is observed here (Bangladesh)

Revolt of the army East of Porus' kingdom, near the Ganges River, were the Nanda Empire of Magadha and further east the Gangaridai Empire (of modern-day Bengal region of the Indian subcontinent).

In this Line, Gangaridai EMpire was Modern DAY BANGLADESH . Earlier, Gopalganj, Bangladesh name was written but now it has been written in a technical manner saying ( modern day Bengal Region of the Indian Subcontinent).... Indeed, it is not any Bengal region under the Indian Subcontinent in the modern day also.

I request the Admin to write it in a proper manner. We do not expect wiki to write substances that might have political influences.

regards... Tarnima

The Bengal region includes both West Bengal (in India) and East Bengal (Bangladesh). The Gangaridai Empire was in both areas, not just Bangladesh.--Tataryn (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexander in Jerusalem

Current: "Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel's prophecy, presumably chapter 8, which described a mighty Greek king who would conquer the Persian Empire." Should change it to: "Alexander was shown prophesies from the Book of Daniel, presumably chapter 2, which described a mighty Greek king who would conquer the Persian Empire, but probably not chapter 8, which prophesied that Alexander's kingdom would split into four less powerful kingdoms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.112.141 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of the name Alexander

Seems kind of irrelevant to the piece, would anyone go nuts if I were to remove it? Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Or at least edit it down so it doesn't come off as an ancient greek lesson at the beginning of the article. Something for Alexandros ho Megas like: "Lit. Great Defender of Men." That way we don't have the word for word break down of the Greek. I never realized how contentious his life was; but going through the comment section is hilarious. But, just to state so there's no question of biases on my part, I'm not ethnically Greek, Macedonian, or Albanian. Haha (Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

Yea I don't see a problem with putting it within a note beside his name. --Tataryn (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Does that look alright? (Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC))

I'd get rid of it entirely. I've long found its presence there ridiculous. Name etymologies are almost entirely irrelevant to most biographies, including this one, so I don't know why it's featured here so prominently. If anyone wants to know the origins of the name they can look at Alexander, a page even easier to find than this one. The etymology doesn't appear in the articles dedicated to Alexander I, II, IV or V of Macedon - or Tsars Alexander I, II or III of Russia for that matter - with good reason. Alexander the Great was presumably named after his ancestors Kings Alexander I and II of Macedon, not because of the literal meaning of "Alexander", so it's undue weight and/or original research to have the etymology positioned like that. --Folantin (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional comment: I mean, the first line of Alfred the Great doesn't describe him as "Elf Counsel the Great", which is what his name literally means in Old English. So I don't know what's special about this page although, as you imply, it is a magnet for a Certain Sort of User. --Folantin (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree Greek Macedon (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent or simply, India ?

I recently edited the words " Alexander's forays into the Indian subcontinent" with simply "....into India", and similar changes in 2-3 other places. This was promptly reverted by one user who accused me of being nationalistic! Isn't it correct when it is mentioned that the Ancient Greeks (infact any peoples before 1947) referred to the land in question as India? Why is it being mentioned as "Indian subcontinent" then? Is it because of hesitancy in some people's minds that calling it as "India" will undermine people of other modern states that now share that land? Well, there's no shame in calling a spade a spade. And let me state that the modern states of Republic of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, even eastern parts of Afghanistan are inheritors or successors of Ancient India and Medieval India. No shame in admitting this. The modern day Republic of India alone does not have sole proprietor rights over Ancient and Medieval India's history- it is shared by all the countries mentioned above. Geopolitixx (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016

the "ethnicity" (=Greek) is missing from the page. please update. 14.137.81.246 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done there is no "Ethnicity" parameter in Template:Infobox royalty and this has been discussed numerous times before, please see the 32 discussions about the "Greekness of Alexander" in the list of past discussions, above - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see these "discussions"... Greek Macedon (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

All previous discussions are held in the archived pages. If you want to see them look in the buff box at the top of the talk page and have a look IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok thnx Greek Macedon (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrongly attributed picture at the end of Legacy paragraph

The Image shown depicts not Alexander and Khadir, but rather the prothets Elias and Khadir. See image source: http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_F1937.24 Can somebody change that? --77lsdl (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the image. Paul August ☎ 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Revolt of the Army

Can this pic be added in the Revolt of the army section? It will give better info of the area.

Asia in 323 BC, the Nanda Empire and Gangaridai Empire in relation to Alexander's Empire and neighbors.

(2600:1001:B125:9C9E:E965:7F97:FE13:9C56 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Tradition about 'book of Daniel'

An editor has sought to restore a claim about the Jews 'showing Alexander the book of Daniel'.[1] However, there is broad agreement among scholars that the book of Daniel wasn't even written until long after Alexander's lifetime. The tradition that existed by the time of Josephus should not be presented as if it is an historical event, and certainly not in a section about Egypt. The only 'historical' element related to the tradition presented by Josephus is that Alexander didn't attack Jerusalem. However, it is not practical or notable to provide a list of places that Alexander didn't attack. The tradition is currently located in the In ancient and modern culture subsection, though it may be more suitable in the Legend subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's good that you brought this to the talk page; however, it would have been better if you had left the status quo alone while this is discussed. Please read the first part of the Egypt section again. The first part talks about what happened on Alexander's way to Egypt. So any historic event that happened on his way to Egypt belongs there, like the note about Gaza. Alexander could have sacked Jerusalem, and there must have been a good reason that he didn't. Scholars may be wrong. It's not our place to decide whether or not the Antiquities of the Jews is true or not. That writing is used as a source for this "claim" or passage, and it specifically states that the book of Daniel was shown to Alexander. So the passage you moved should be replaced back where it was before you moved it – it should be read by readers when they read about Alexander's "road to Egypt"! And... you should have a consensus before you move the passage away from its status quo position in this article.  Rules of enpagement Paine  16:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jeffro. The passage is unhistorical. "scholars may be wrong"? First of all I don't see any sources being quoted. Second, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal feeling. The way I see it the whole thing should be removed as it is not sourced to a modern secondary source, but rather to Josephus, who is a primary source. Athenean (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The claim that 'scholars may be wrong' is special pleading. Even if scholars were wrong about the time of writing of the book of Daniel, it remains the consensus view that the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE and is not in any way 'supernatural', and 'Wikipedia's voice' should not imply otherwise. The 'status quo' is being used to shoehorn a religious superstition about the book of Daniel being 'prophetic' into a history section against mainstream scholarship, and is quite inappropriate; the assertion that Josephus' (2nd century CE) presentation of a later tradition trumps modern scholarship is, at best, undue weight. There could indeed be any number of reasons why Jerusalem (or any other city) wasn't attacked—the most obvious being that they capitulated. The fact that cities en route to Egypt capitulated remains intact in the History section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, scholars have been known to be wrong; however, so far it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, because no reliable sources have been presented to support the claimed agreement among scholars. I can't believe we have two good editors who want to spoil this article without consensus, and with no reliable sources cited to support what they want. All we've seen so far is "I don't like it"!  Rules of enpagement Paine  08:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Do not restore the claim without a reliable secondary source. Josephus is not a secondary source, nor an impartial source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is beginning to border on the ludicrous. Firstly, the source is the Antiquities of the Jews, "a 20-volume historiographical work composed by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in the 13th year of the reign of Roman emperor Flavius Domitian which was around AD 93 or 94". This work "provides valuable background material to historians wishing to understand 1st-century AD Judaism and the early Christian period". Secondly, it is you who have been sketchy about sources. You keep saying this and that about scholars, and yet you haven't cited a single one. Who are these "scholars"? Are they biblical scholars? secular scholars? British scholars? Are they American scholars? If you were to say this in the article, that modern scholars agree..., someone would come along and slap a weasel-word template such as on your words. So all right, I won't edit war with you anymore. But if you don't come up with a better reason than "I don't like it" soon, then we'll just have to have an RfC on this, because I feel very strongly that you are wrong to remove that passage from Alexander's travels to Egypt and to give it an obscure out-of-context position further down. If I am wrong, then it will take either reliable sources to support what you say, or an RfC to see what several other editors think. I think that you're damaging a "Good Article", and that's a shame.  Rules of enpagement Paine  10:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

An understanding of "1st-century AD Judaism" is not a suitable source for presenting a Jewish religious tradition as if it is a fact, when it is inconsistent with the broad scholarly view. "It is the view of practically all modern scholars that the 7th to 12th chapters of the book of Daniel were not authored or put into their final form until the 2nd century BCE"[2]. Neither your ignorance nor your 'personal feeling' that 'scholars may be wrong' supersedes that fact. Your claim that the reason given is simply "I don't like it" is plainly false. It's not remotely clear how a separate section of the same article is somehow 'obscure'. The placement of a Jewish tradition about Alexander in a section about Alexander's effects on ancient cultures is entirely appropriate. However, as previously stated, it may be more appropriate to move it to the Legend subsection—from which the linked article Alexander the Great in legend also mentions the reference in the book of Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing a source and for emphasizing my ignorance! Your source's words, were not authored or put into their final form until the 2nd century BCE. seem telling to me. The tradition was and is not presented as "fact"; it was and is presented as "tradition". Why do you twist things so? Your source also is as vague as you have been about those "modern scholars" you keep mentioning. {{Who}} are they? Where are they? What are their credentials? Do they all agree about this? Are there some modern scholars who dissent? So far your argument has not been compelling, at least not for me. The text you removed from the Egypt section should be returned to that section where it may be absorbed by our readers in the context of Alexander's march on the road to Egypt. No amount of ignorance on my part changes that nor the fact that you seem to be bent on damaging this GA!  Rules of enpagement Paine  12:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Although the word "tradition" is used, it is used as an introduction that strongly suggests that what follows is what actually happened—that it "recorded [Alexander's] entry into Jerusalem". It then even more blatantly states as if factual that Alexander spared Jerusalem 'because he had a dream'. These supernatural claims are not consistent with scholarly consensus (or rational thought) and have no place in a section about historical events. The claim that moving a Jewish tradition to a section about cultural influence is somehow 'damaging' to the article is disingenuous. Any claim that the source I provided is the only source for the fact that there is consensus among scholars about this issue is also false. I'm not here to give you an in-depth education about the book of Daniel; you might like to start with something like Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by John Joseph Collins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Reads like more denial to me. You don't want to take the time to meet Wikipedia's standards against weasel words, but you will take the time to damage this GA and to make condescending responses to me. You don't remind me of me anymore.  Rules of enpagement Paine  13:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Denial? More? Denial of what? The continued claim that the article is somehow 'damaged' by moving a cultural view to a section about cultural views remains dubious (at best).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it seems dubious to you, since you are the one who moved the text and placed it out of context. And yes, "denial". You deny that the passage was explicitly described as tradition and go on to say that it was presented as fact – denial. You then go on about my "dream" addition as if it were presented as fact also – denial. You call my claim "disingenuous" out of hand – denial. You wrongly imply that I thought your source was the only source, but I never made such a claim – worse than denial, it's disingenuous. Your condescending words about an "in-depth" education on Daniel (weren't there some lions in that one?) – I'll let that be your call after you've tried to walk a mile in my shoes. All this says very loudly that you are not looking forward to the objective !votes and rationales of an RfC, which will only come when this discussion has reached an impasse. Has it? I think it has, for I've rebutted effectively every argument you have set forth. You have removed two sentences from their logical and timely context and put them in a place where they lose their powerful meaning. Please restore those sentences to their correct place, which if I'm not mistaken should be after the Gaza sentence rather than before it. Alexander first passed by Jerusalem and had a rough seige at Gaza, where he was badly wounded, and then he turned back to Jerusalem (at least according to Flavius Josephus). His soldiers were looking forward to plundering the city, and were taken aback when Alexander would not let them. They thought he was out of his mind! (just more tidbits from the Jewish tradition)  Rules of enpagement Paine  14:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As you have descended into false accusations, I have simply lodged the RfC. The 'powerful meaning' of the religious superstition is a significant element of why the statements of Jewish tradition should not be presented as 'history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing reference at the beginning of "Consolidation of power"

The text reads: "Olympias had Cleopatra Eurydice and Europa, her daughter by Philip, burned alive. When Alexander learned about this, he was furious."

The "burned alive"(in a bronze vessel) is according to Pausanias 8,7,7 whereas Justin claims that Olympias "forced Cleopatra to hang herself,... having first killed her daughter in her lap" (Iustinus 9,7,12) Both sources do not mention Alexander's reaction, so a source / citation would be in place here or else this sentence should be removed. My suggestion: "Olympias had Cleopatra Eurydice and Europa, her daughter by Philip, killed." , http://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias8A.html / http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/trans9.html#7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.161.241 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

Please change (20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), to ( 22 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC),

Alexander the Great was born on July 22nd http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Alexander_the_Great

William Paul Smith (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Astrology suites are not reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Palestine

change ((Palestine)) to ((State of Palestine|Palestine))

 Not done Alexander the Great died in June 323 BC, the state of Palestine was declared in November 1988, 2311 years later - there is clearly no connection between the two - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Jewish tradition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the tradition that the Jews showed Alexander the book of Daniel be included in the 'History' (Conquest of the Persian Empire) section or should it be in the 'Cultural impact' (Legacy) section?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Options

Please comment regarding the following options:

• Including the coloured text in the historical subsection about Egypt in the context of the existing text:

When Alexander destroyed Tyre, most of the towns on the route to Egypt quickly capitulated. A later tradition recorded his entry into Jerusalem: according to Josephus, Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel's prophecy, presumably chapter 8, which described a mighty Greek king who would conquer the Persian Empire. He spared Jerusalem and pushed south into Egypt. However, Alexander met with resistance at Gaza. [...]

• Including the following statement in the Ancient and modern culture or the Legend subsections:

According to Josephus, Alexander was shown the Book of Daniel when he entered Jerusalem, which described a mighty Greek king who would conquer the Persian Empire. This is cited as a reason for sparing Jerusalem.

• Some other presentation

--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Alexander's being shown the Book of Daniel isn't even mentioned in R.L. Fox's Alexander the Great (the only full length Alexander biography I have to hand). In fact, the only mention of Alexander in Jerusalem that I can find is a note that the idea that Alexander did obeisance before the high priest in Jerusalem is "obviously a Jewish legend". Mentioning the story in the history section would be both out-of-place (it's not history, it's legend!) and undue. I'm perfectly happy for it to go under the legacy section somewhere, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment in favor of the first presentation above. Not to be taken too lightly, this was the status quo, and it was changed in this Good Article without discussion or consensus. Not to be taken with undue weight, it should also be noted that the status quo has not been returned while this is being discussed. Hopefully it is obvious to all that the inclusion of those two sentences in the "Egypt" section has never been presented as historic fact, since it is explicitly stated that they are part of a "tradition" as set forth by Flavius Josephus long after Alexander's conquests, and that this tradition (in this context) describes a Jewish "history" of sorts about what happened on Alexander's road to Egypt. So the first presentation above, the status quo, should be returned to its helpful context for those readers who want to read what may have happened while Alexander marched toward Egypt.  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The insinuation that any change to the 'status quo' is a threat to 'good article status' is simply incorrect, and the article's status does not 'hinge' on this change. Thus far, two other editors (Caeciliusinhorto here and Athenean in the section above) have clearly stated that the Jewish tradition does not belong in the History section. The claim about what 'may have happened' is based only on a Jewish tradition from a Jewish source that Fox identifies as "obviously a Jewish legend". The article has a separate section for presenting traditions that developed long after Alexander's conquests, and the Jewish tradition should not be given more weight than the other views presented in the relevant Legacy subsections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

During any discussion such as this, it is not "mandatory" and yet it is considered a "courtesy" to return the article, Good, Featured or otherwise, to its status quo condition while being bandied about. This is so that uninvolved editors who come to the RfC, as well as involved editors who haven't read the article in awhile, may actually see the controversial text in its complete context before being erased. It is hoped that your first presentation above is helpful enough to these future participants here; however, a return to the status quo, with a link to the appropriate section, in this case "Egypt", is the only way to ensure a fair contextual read of the material. It is WP:OR to judge the Antiquities of the Jews as anything other than a history written about past events, a history written by the conquered. "Official" histories are so often written by those who do the conquering, but few histories come down to us by the conquered ones, and when they do, they are relegated to terms like "tradition" and to statements by writers that "scholars agree" without citing any actual agreeing scholars. Those two sentences are a Jewish history of what happened on Alexander's way to Egypt, and they should remain in the Egypt section.  Rules of enpagement Paine  19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. There is sufficient context in the quote, and any editor considering the RfC can check the article history if they so desire. Restoring the unhistorical text to the article is of no additional benefit, and there does not seem to be any support for your position. And it is not original research to state that the Jewish tradition presented by Josephus is "obviously a Jewish legend".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to re-iterate my support for the position adopted by Jeffro. This is a no-brainer, really. Athenean (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion, the "no-brainer" one, I mean. The events of this article happened long ago, and from such an era, even "official" histories tend to grow very dim. One has to wonder just how much of what the proposer has called "history" is in fact legend moreso. Also, it may interest participants to know that I had considered being the one who started an RfC on this, but because my position had received no support from involved editors in the previous discussion, I had decided not to do so, and that was before I found out that the proposer had rightly and correctly chosen to begin this RfC before I could. So here we are, and I sincerely hope that all who read and participate have an excellent time bandying about this Good Article. It begins by taking Jewish tradition/legend/history out of its context. Let's hope it ends here.  Rules of enpagement Paine  14:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the mild ad hominem. However, the 'proposer' has not proposed some novel hypothesis. The 'proposer' has simply indicated in favour of the broad consensus regarding the period and events in question. The insinuation that correcting the article in this manner might 'just' be 'the beginning' of something presumably 'even more insidious' is tiresome and entirely unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Question: which reliable source verifies any of the above proposed sentences? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor Borsoka: The only source used in the article is the Antiquities of the Jews with the appropriate cite at this link. Another source was given in the previous discussion to support the statement "modern scholars agree" that the book of Daniel was written after Alexander's conquests; however, that source just says the same thing again without actually citing any of the said scholars who agree. While that is a crucial point to keep the status quo and return those two sentences to the "Egypt" section, it must also be questioned just how much of actual "history" this entire article represents. These events reportedly happened long, long ago, and it might be that the story of Alexander, the entire story and not just the Jewish tradition, is little or nothing more than legend. Think of it: a young Greek king who managed to achieve the support of a large army of seasoned soldiers and take them to conquer most of the known world, all in just seven years? In any case, (and I'm sorry to go on and on, but I do that sometimes) the Jewish Antiquities source shows that the two sentences belong in context in the Egypt section from which they were removed. To erase them and put them in any other part of this article might confuse readers.  Paine  ^u/c 17:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, only a primary source (Flavius' work) has so far been cited. If this is the case, we should not mention it, as per WP:NOR (I refer especially to WP:Primary source). Interpretation or evaluation of the source especially contradicts to the referred policy of our community. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has already pointed out that R. L. Fox—already cited throughout the article—states that the tradition about Alexander's entry into Jerusalem is "obviously a Jewish legend".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is the case, I think this piece of information could be mentioned under the "Legend" subsection. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The precise statement by the other editor was that Fox wrote that "the idea that Alexander did obeisance before the high priest in Jerusalem is 'obviously a Jewish legend'". Don't we find it interesting that, while this entire tale is probably frought with legend, and I don't see any of the sections labeled "history", here we are picking out two Jewish sentences and calling them "legend". Why just those two sentences?  Paine  ^u/c 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So much has been said that contrasts this article's "history" with another article's "legend" that I think we should be reminded that both articles are about history... and legend/myth. This article is about a great leader of men who, beginning at age twenty, led his seasoned troops to victory over most of the known world. In the lead it is indeed referred to as "history", and yet other Greek accounts that come down to us are also believed by a few to be historical, such as Hercules, Mt. Olympus, etc. If we put that aside for the moment and read the lead of the Jewish Antiquities article, we see that it also is shown to be "history" written by a Jewish "historian", a large volumnous work, and just like the story of Alexander, we really have no way of telling what is actual history and what is made-up legend. These are just things to think about, since I have no doubt that the removal of the Jewish "legend" from its true context in the Egypt section of this half-myth article will be the beginning of several bad edits that will lead to the loss of GA status.  Paine  ^u/c 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Josephus's work is a primary source. If modern scholars (or one modern scholar who mentions it in connection with Alexander's life) describe it as an obvious legend, we should treat it as a legend, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

What Borsoka said. Josephus is a primary source per WP:NOR. Richard Stoneman in Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend (Yale University Press, 2008; paperback edition, 2010, p. 49) quotes Josephus then comments, "The story of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem is almost certainly fiction, in its outline as well as its details. No other historian mentions it...". Stoneman also writes, "The fictionality of the story can easily be shown [...] by the fact that the Book of Daniel, which the priests show to the king, was not written until about 165 BC, nearly two hundred years after Alexander passed through the region." (p. 50). --Folantin (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional: Saskia Dönitz in her chapter on "Alexander the Great in Medieval Hebrew Traditions" in A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages (ed. Z. David Zuwiyya, Brill, 2011) explicitly describes Josephus' story of the visit as "fictional" (page 22).--Folantin (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Josephus's work is a primary source. – Borsoka

Curious that this has been mentioned before by another contributor. How is the Jewish Antiquities a primary source as defined in Wikipedia's NOR policy? It was written in the latter part of the first century CE, while the events described in this article took place in the third century BCE. Flavius Josephus was a historian and could not possibly have been involved in the events of Alexander's era, could he? How then is his Jewish history considered a primary source? Just askin'.  Paine  ^u/c 07:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you say that Josephus's work is not the original source of Alexander the Great's visit to Jerusalem? Why do you think that is is a secondary source? Would you refer to the primary source of Josephus's report? Nevertheless, the above list shows that peer-reviewed publications describe the visit as a legend - consequently we have to treat it as a legend. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be the only source, but that doesn't make it a "primary" source. Flavius Josephus lived centuries after Alexander, and gave a Jewish perspective of events that "provides valuable background material to historians wishing to understand 1st-century AD Judaism and the early Christian period". And yet those same scholars seem to scoff at anything Josephus wrote about pre-1st-century periods. Josephus was a scholar of the 1st century who researched and wrote about many events that began with the beginning of time as perceived by the Jews and led up to the Jewish War. Why are the words of modern scholars more perceptive than his in regard to what is history and what is legend? Josephus wrote that the Book of Daniel, particularly the story about the Greek king who would conquer Persia, had already been written in Alexander's time, so it's a Jewish historian's word from the 1st century against the word of scholars here in this age, 2000+ years later. Who has the better perspective? This whole article is about a young Greek king who, in about seven years, conquered most of the then-known world. From my perspective it's all pretty much legend, and it's hugely original research to call any of it "history", a word which, except for the lead, is largely and wisely avoided in this article. Why are just the Jewish words considered "legend"?  Paine  ^u/c 18:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"From my perspective". Your perspective is not a reliable source; the perspective of modern academic experts is. Following your logic we should add that Alexander ascended to heaven in a griffin-powered flying machine because Medieval sources make this claim and the Middle Ages are closer to Alexander than the 21st century. Incidentally, Josephus actually goes against the Jewish historical tradition expressed in such works as the First Book of Maccabees (2nd century BC) that Alexander was an evil conqueror ultimately responsible for the Seleucid Dynasty and Antiochus Epiphanes. --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If Josephus's work is the only source of the story, we can agree that it is the primary source of a Jewish legend about Alexander's visit to Jerusalem. We cannot avoid the world "legend", because it is frequently used in connection with the story in peer reviewed works. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this debate, because discussing our perspectives about legends can easily be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Josephus wrote from a perspective of "1st-century AD Judaism" quite readily answers why modern historians are given more weight than the superstitious notion that the book of Daniel is 'prophetic'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by bot) This seems a no-brainer, since nobody seems to doubt that this is probably a legend, and is not endorsed by modern historians, it should NOT be in the history section or should be clearly phrased as being a legend if it is easier to include the text in 'history'. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

Please add [[Category:Bisexual royalty]] to the page. Thanks. 201.50.33.134 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. However, be advised that there are no known reliable sources that can confirm Alexander's bisexuality; therefore, it cannot be said for certain that he was "bisexual royalty".  Paine  ^u/c 10:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

75.172.62.185 (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Maps of routes. Maps of battles. The Army. Strategies

Hello admins, this biography is well done, but it can be better so much. I would like to cooperate adding maps of the routes, maps of battles, the army. Actually i've got more than 100 editions, being member of Alexander's project (spanish), a full collaborator and maintenance of the greek biography (maps and short references), and spanish (almost 75% of it, including history, maps, routes, arts gallery...clearing vandalism!). In fact, both biographies changed 100%: the visual aspect, historical value, are important elements to build a great bio. The next step is to propose to remove the "rose" and "ilga" flag on the talk page. Any question, will be welcome. There are some maps that i've uploaded. You can feel free to use them, I'll be honoured. Regards.

Links
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Magno https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Αλέξανδρος_ο_Μέγας

User
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DIEGO73 https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:DIEGO73 (greek) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:DIEGO73 (english) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:DIEGO73 (spanish)

--DIEGO73 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC) January 27 2017

The citations are an absolute mess

Inaccuracies abound with the citations of this article, particularly the alleged "Roisman & Worthington 2010" ones due to the fact that these two gentlemen are the frigging editors of that book. Not the authors. The authors are determined by the individual chapters of the book, which thankfully is available in its entirety (but most importantly with its table of contents) at Archive.org. Each author must be cited according to their chapter. This is a problem I had to fix in Macedonia (ancient kingdom), while expanding, rewriting, and submitting that article as a Good Article candidate. It was a massive headache and I don't feel like fixing the problem again. I can even see how this happened. Someone consulted the version of this book that is available at Google Books, which does not contain its table of contents (that part of the review is conveniently missing). Regardless, whoever edited this Wikipedia article had the responsibility of confirming who wrote the material instead of regurgitating these citations without any thought or care in the world.

To make matters worse, it seems like the same Wiki editor(s) had the bright idea to compound the problem by introducing it into Achaemenid Macedonia as well. How fun! I want to assume the best of intentions, but I can't help but feel like it's just an extra middle finger aimed gleefully at everyone who has to come along and clean up his or her mess. I have a good mind to strike all of these citations from the articles instead of fixing them. I'm in that particular mood at the moment. I'll give it a few days, but if nobody has ponied up, confessed, and fixed the problem promptly, or if no on else is generously willing to do it for the original editor(s), then I will be forced to remove this erroneously cited material from both this article and the aforementioned one on Achaemenid Macedonia. The person who nominated and brought this article up to Good Status should in particular take heed of this. Your article is about to become rather unstable and filled with a great deal of "citation needed" tags if you do not address this within a reasonable time frame (two weeks is charitable for an article of such importance). Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In fact, if this problem is not addressed within a reasonable amount of time, then I think an immediate review of the Good Article status for "Alexander the Great" is in order. Who knows what other sources have similar problems? This is sloppiness, pure and simple, and that sort of lowered standard does not belong in a "Good Article" of any sort. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ERROR

he named 7 cities Alexandria

24.55.48.153 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please fix last sentence of the introduction

The sentence reads: "He is often ranked among the world's most influential people of all time, along with his teacher Aristotle.[9][10]"

'Among the world's most influential people of all time' is redundant; people have never existed anywhere else but here.

The sentence should either read:

"He is often ranked among the most influential people of all time, along with his teacher Aristotle.[9][10]"

or

"He is often ranked among the world's most influential people, along with his teacher Aristotle.[9][10]"

Thank you

Actually, "among the world's" implies that his influence has worldwide reach. However, rewording is likely useful, perhaps to "Along with his teacher Aristotle, he is often ranked amongst the world's most influential people of all time."evangeline.a (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I defy you to find a people or place that Alexander the Great has not exerted some influence upon at some point in history. Apart from Jesus of Nazareth he is arguably the most famous person in human history, and his fame preceded that of Jesus by over 300 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.245.219 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy closing per WP:SNOW – against all naming principles. No such user (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Alexander the Great → Alexander III of Macedon – We don't use titles for people. Eg:- Jesus, Muhammad, Shivaji etc. 86.97.128.25 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow close WP:Commonname -- AxG / ✉  13:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually we often do use titles. We use the most common name. Most people would not even know that Alexander of Macedon was the third of that name. Some people are exclusively known or recognized by the moniker “the Great” (Several people who history has bestowed upon that name have thus such aptly named Wikipedia articles: Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Llywelyn the Great), other historical persons carry that title but aren’t immediately bound to it in the public mind. As to that latter category Louis XIV of France also carried the title “the Great” (“ Louis le Grand”) but he is not universally acknowledged under that name, but under his regnal number. I thus see no need to move people who are universally and intrinsically linked to the moniker “the Great” to redirect to their regnal name.

Furthermore, it’s not only the moniker “the Great” that is used in titles, some people/royals are also universally known under another moniker, fort instance Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Harald Bluetooth, Charles the Bold , Philip the Bold, Philip the Good, Edward the Confessor, Louis the Pious, Charles the Fat, John the Fearless, Harold Harefoot, Pepin the Hunchback, Suleiman the Magnificent, Edward the Martyr, Gorm the Old

I thus would oppose such a move. – fdewaele, 24 March 2017, 14:24 CET.

• Oppose as demonstrated above, yes we do use titles for people. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

i wish to share my knoweledge of alexander the great with the people of the world.So I thought Wikepedia was the best way to do it some years are off and some facts too. Hello519 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done You need to specify what changes you want made, and what the sources for them are (and they have to be reliable sources, per Wikipedia's rules). Just claiming that you want to "share your knowledge" with us isn't good enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Alexander the Great was actually Macedonian

Alexander the Great is in fact the king of Macedonia. He is not at all from Greece despite many rumours of him being Greek. If he was Greek there wouldn't be an airport named after him in Skopje the capital of the great Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.158.145 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The article gives "Macedon" as his kingdom, and that ancient name is interchangeable with "Macedonia".  Paine  ^u/c 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth: As someone who studied Art History, I have yet to see in any of my books the name Macedon used instead of Macedonia. I just read the online available translation by G.Rawlinson and here is what- I have no idea who Rawlinson is, but considering that in the greek language there isn't even a spelling for Macedon I have seen in old text, I have to say that Rawlinson is pulling this translation/name convention out of his a**. So no, there is ONE Macedonia only.evangeline.a (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I know very little of all this mostly because of conflicting stories from reliable sources; however, what I do know is that "Greece" and "Greek" are English words. They derive from the Latin word Graecia which was used by the Romans to describe the grouping together of the autonomous city-states of Greece. The people who live there don't call it Greece, as they call their country Hellas or Ellada (Greek: Ἑλλάς or Ελλάδα). And since "Macedon" is and was often used on maps to show the boundaries of Macedonia, I think it also is a valid term for the northernmost parts of Greece. Time needs to be taken into consideration in a discussion like this, and while some of the ancients might be said to have identified themselves as Greek (Hellasan or Elladan), most identified with their city-states, such as Spartan, Athenian, and so on. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 23:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So the naming of an airport in an ex-Yugoslav state is proof enough that he was not Greek. Well, the airport in Kavala Greece is also named Alexander the Great, so what? According to ancient historians, he actually identified as a Greek himself on a few occasions, here's one in recorded history...

Alexander the Great, addressing the dead Greeks of the Battle of Chaeronea: “Holy shadows of the dead, Im not to blame for your cruel and bitter fate, but the accursed rivalry which brought sister nations and brother people, to fight one another.”… …”I do not feel happy for this victory of mine. On the contrary, I would be glad, brothers, if I had all of you standing here next to me, since we are united by the same language, the same blood and the same visions.” (Historiae Alexandri Magni, 6.3.11, by Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus) N.Panamevris (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexanders great grand father also identified as a Greek...

"Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the COMMON welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; but I AM MYSELF GREEK by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. …If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON"

[Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson] N.Panamevris (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just faulty logic on the part of the IP. There were cities and other entities named for Alexander in many parts of the old world. Having Alexandria in Egypt named after him doesn't make him Egyptian. Since most of Macedonia is now part of Greece, there is no harm in referring to Alexander as either Macedonian or Greek, in the same manner as, say, Socrates being referred to as either Athenian or Greek.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, NOBODY was Greek or identified as Greek. There were Spartans, there were Thessalians, there were Beotians, there were Macedonians. The name Greece or Greek did not exist in the ancient world. Greece is a contemporary entity. So to sum up, Alexander WAS/IS Macedonian. To argue otherwise is to puppet Greek propaganda.evangeline.a (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Macedonia fell out of favor with southern Greece after the death of Alexander with many Greeks resenting Macedonian rule and virulent antagonism expressed toward anything even remotely Macedonian." Article by someone with politicized opinions on Macedonia, but his quoted comment is relevant in regard to attitudes of "greeks" towards "macedonians".evangeline.a (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC) https://www.ancient.eu/macedon/

"As a matter of fact, NOBODY was Greek or identified as Greek". "The name Greece or Greek did not exist in the ancient world." right, of course. So when Herodotus, the "Father of History", began his work with the phrase "Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements produced by both Greeks and non-Greeks; among the matters covered is, in particular, the cause of the hostilities between Greeks and non-Greeks.", he probably meant US fraternities... Constantine ✍ 23:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably should keep in mind that it is unlikely that Herodotus wrote in English, and "Greek" is an English translation of whatever it was he called the people in his Ancient Greek tongue.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 00:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The word that he used was Ἕλλην (Héllēn), which is the ancestor of Έλληνας, the Modern Greek word for a Greek. There was indeed a Greek identity at that time, despite the many dialects spoken across the Greek world. — Eru·tuon 01:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Erutuon: Egypt was "Hellenized". They spoke koine. Are you going to argue that the Egyptians too had a Greek identity? That is just silly chest beating, not anchored in fact. Is the argument here that Alexander was Macedonian Greek the way Obama is African American? Or maybe in contemporary terms, because many peoples speak English, they have an English or American identity?evangeline.a (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dang, and I thought all the time that he was Egyptian; there's even a city named after him there.... A city that predates any FYROMian history. Silly me.
Seriously guys; don't feed 'em. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My horse in the game is accurate Art/History, *@LouisAragon: but yours seems to be political bitching. Your choice of Fyrom shows your stripes.evangeline.a (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

B-b-but gosh, LA, that's no fun! Takes me back to my :>) days on Usenet. I guess sometimes we feed 'em 'cause we miss 'em, and even if we ignore 'em, they still just keep on comin'. And as usual, even in my old age I still sometimes actually learn something while they peck away. Best to ya!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ancient.eu/article/94/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)