Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

aristotle on bysexuality, again

There was a mention before and some edits by an anonymous editor that were deleted (check ^1 if you haven't, already, done so). Phrases like "Plato argued that it was common but against nature and thus un-natural, as Aristotle also agreed - "They are a deviation from the norm....some diseased things result from nature or habit" (Aristotle - De' Anima). One can therefore validly claim that Alexander, known as the Philosopher-King would have adhered to his greatest passion - the love of wisdom and not un-natural relations." were deleted. It seems that those phrases aren't from De Anima but from Nicomachean Ethics, 1148b 29, english translation, "... These practices result in some cases from natural disposition, and in others from habit, as with those who have been abused from childhood ...". The phrase "deviation from the norm" may be a different translation of "unnatural propensities", or perhaps is from another text. If you can read Greek, check this and this analyses. The original ancient Greek text is "αἳ δὲ νοσηματώδεις ἢ ἐξ ἔθους, οἷον τριχῶν τίλσεις καὶ ὀνύχων τρώξεις, ἔτι δ’ ἀνθράκων καὶ γῆς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἡ τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ φύσει τοῖς δ’ ἐξ ἔθους συμβαίνουσιν, οἷον τοῖς ὑβριζομένοις ἐκ παίδων. ὅσοις μὲν οὖν φύσις αἰτία, τούτους μὲν οὐδεὶς ἂν εἴπειεν ἀκρατεῖς, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰς γυναῖκας, ὅτι οὐκ ὀπύουσιν ἀλλ’ ὀπύονται· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὅσοι νοσηματώδως ἔχουσι δι’ ἔθος." MATIA 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

From Rhetorica of Aristoteles, 1384a 15-20, "And acts of yielding to the lust of others are shameful whether willing or unwilling (yielding to force being an instance of unwillingness), since unresisting submission to them is due to unmanliness or cowardice." (see more in English or check the original text at 1384a).MATIA 8 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by \Megistias (talk • contribs) 11:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC).

athens, sparta, lesbos, pedros =greece?

The word Macedonia and Macedonians is in bible, Philip Macedonian enjoy victory over Athens and Spartans (greece????). My question is how helenisam become nation, so are comunisam can become nation.Nationality comunist??When was the word greece show for the first time?

Boban K.The word Macedonia and Macedonians is in bible, Philip Macedonian enjoy victory over Athens and Spartans (greece????). My question is how helenisam become nation, so are comunisam can become nation.Nationality comunist??When was the word greece show for the first time? --62.162.196.162 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Read any western latin writer about the naming of Hellenes by then which was Greki.Julius Caesar will do fine.In the west they were called Greeks in The east Yunan & so on. {{subst:Unsigned|Megistias|09:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Read Hesiod (750 bc) & Apollodorus (100 bc) for Grekos which was an ancenstor to the Hellene.It is a Greek/HEllenic word nothing more & it refers to the Greek=Hellenic Nation. {unsigned|Megistias|13:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Age of Alexander when he died?

Something is wrong because Alexander was really 32 years old when he died not 33. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwertyuiopasdfghjklmnbvcxz (talk • contribs) 17:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC).

Clean-up of page

This entire article has grown out of control and has become something of an embarassment. Anyone attempting to do research on Alexander the Great, using wikipedia as a source, is going to find this particular page confusing at best. I suggest we take a look at how other pages are constructed, then basically burn this whole thing and start anew. The Julius Caesar article is well-organized and not filled with so much bias, for example. What I say we do is figure out which sections are needed and which are not. Because wikipeida is not a scholarly publication, we don't need these minute details on his sex life or whether or not modern-day Iranians like him. The portions of this articles on his campaigns are good - nobody can disagree that he burnt Thebes, or Perseopolis, or Tyre, or Gaza. What we don't need is drawn-out discussion as to why he did it. It ought to be as simple as 'Before leaving Greece, Alexander burnt Thebes in (whatever year, can't think of it now).' Then, at the end of the article, we can include a small section on the controversies, giving a handful of basic summaries for the biggest ones, i.e., his homosexuality, his reasons for medizing, even his ethnicity if that'll please some nationalists. But honestly, the only way to fix this article is to cut major portions of it - and we should discuss which of those should go, and which should simply be restructred. --Kulindar 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

But there is controversy - minor or major - at very many points in Alexander's life. We should not try to make the article conform to one view but rather discuss the differences in the ancient sources where there is a discrepancy. All things based on modern interpretations, I agree, should be confined to a specific section. --Tothebarricades 23:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and with Pausanias, wasn't he angry at philip because he was his lover who philip dumped for a younger dude? then pausinias cursed philip and the younger guy invited him to a party and had a bunch of soldiers gang-rape him? (source is "Alexander the Great" by Nigel Cawthorne) -Zero0

Alexander's Defeats?

Was Alexander ever defeated in a battle in his lifetime? --Tykell 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Every time Alexander perssonally led an army he was not defeated making him amongst the few significant generals in history to go undefeated in thier military career.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.135.125 (talk • contribs) 17:59, September 23, 2005 (UTC).

I believe that Alexander was one the greatest generals ever to walk the ancient world. I think this is an accurate thing because of the expanse he conquered and the the time he did it in. Yes Alexander did fight among his men in the front line mainly leading a cavalry charge. The belief he had that he was a god gave him the courage to stand and take the risk in a battle while other generals tend to stand at the back and wait for the outcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexstorer (talk • contribs) 21:33, January 8, 2006 (UTC).

There is no evidence he really thought himself a god. That was an honour bestowed on him, but whether or not he really believed it is unknown. He may have thought himself truly a descendant of Heracles, but that's something completely different. Biff Loman 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

aristotle and barbarians

I've removed a comment on Aristotle because it was inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matia.gr (talk • contribs) 19:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC).

I think the word Greek (as in Greek soldiers) should be removed

I think the word Greek (as in Greek soldiers) should be removed (or clarified further) as there did not exist a 'Greece' per se in the ancient times. There were, as we all know, only the Hellenic City-States. It is therefore innapropriate to make claims such as 'Greek and non-Greek' soldiers, when at the time there was no 'Greek' entity/country. I also believe the mention that Macedonia was a part of classical Greece is again misleading as there did not exist a Classical Greece only the Hellenic City-States. This is also an issue that is up for a lot of debate (especially between today's Greeks and Macedonians) and I believe it should be more ambiguous, rather than seem politically biased. - Analyst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.10.17 11:56, October 25, 2005 (talk • contribs) .

According to Arrianos, after the battle at Granicos river, three hundered shields accompanied by an inscription were sent to Athens and presented at Parthenon. The inscription read "Alexandros Philippoy and the Greeks except for the Lacedaemonians". I would say they would know better whether Greek soldiers should be referred to as a single entity. One could also notice how Macedonians are not named separately. There are also numerous references to Greeks as a single entity already centuries before that (famously and a personal favourite, Aeschylos "Ω ΠΑΙΔΕΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΙΤΕ", "Oh! sons of Greece, march!"). --Cangelis 13:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonians may have thought of themselves as Greeks, but whether this was shared by the conquered back home is unknown. I doubt they would have wanted to think of the Macedonians as one of them, as they were considered culturally inferior. Biff Loman 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians and Greeks are one in the same. Just as Athenians and Spartans were Greek, so were Macedonians.66.53.109.54 23:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

AlEXANDER THE GREAT IS NOT GREEK!! Greeks are all too proud and ignorant. Thinking that Alexander the Great was Greek is rather humorous and childish. Ask any NON-GREEK historian and they will tell you that Alexander the Great was in fact Macedonian and spoke only macedonian to his men. Dr. Gary H. Makintosh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.198.3 (talk • contribs) 04:57, October 31, 2005 (UTC).

Actually, Alexander the Great also spoke Attic Greek to his men (his army included some Greeks), and from Plutarch one may infer that he often spoke common Greek to his men. He probably also knew some Illyrian, Agrianian, and some Thracian phrases, among others (he did have lots of Agrianians and Thracians in his corps, though they surely knew enough Greek or Macedonian to be efficient). Of course, among his Macedonians, one can expect that he regularly spoke the Ancient Macedonian language. Alexander 007 05:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No it is not safe to assume that, because the language shift to Koine took place during his father's reign. (I agree with the rest) +MATIA ☎ 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you take a passage from Plutarch at face value, it was rare for him to "call aloud" in Macedonian. I agree, on the basis of Plutarch if nothing else, that he most often spoke Greek, but I would like to believe that Alexander also spoke Macedonian on a semi-regular basis. The evidence is not conclusive. Given that Macedonian was still a way from being assimilated in his time, he (perhaps) often spoke Macedonian among his Macedonians. The Macedonian language/dialect was not assimilated in his time.

I've referenced Plutarch here twice, and both instances refer to the same passage, where Plutarch implies that "it was a sign of a great disturbance" for Alexander to give orders to his Macedonians in Macedonian. But giving orders is different from casual speech. So it wouldn't surprise me if he often (often=regularly) spoke Macedonian to his Macedonian soldiers. Alexander 007 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be possible that XMK wasn't assimilated fully yet, but you agree about Philip, don't you? +MATIA ☎ 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

One can argue that the shift began before Philip, but it certainly became a more major shift during his reign and afterwards. I don't know when historians believe the language or dialect became extinct completely (Dbachmann writes in Ancient Macedonian language that it survived into early CE), but it was still spoken by many in Alexander's time, most historians I think would agree. Alexander 007 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I had read in the past, my personal opinion is that Philip played the bigest roll in that language shift. I think that XMK had probably survived (with minor or not, changes) for long after Philip and Alexander III. +MATIA ☎ 21:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

there is a reference here to a non-existant Macedonian language. There is no Macedonian language: only a Macedonian Greek dialect akin to Spartan Greek or Athenian Greek.

the "known" world??

the first paragraph says alexander the great conquered most of the "known" world. this is completely ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.233.55 (talk • contribs) 03:57, November 5, 2005 (UTC).

It is indeed ridiculous. Alexander's territory expanded until he ran into part of the rather larger Persian Empire, at which point he ground to a halt. After he died, the Persians took much of what was lost back. Their empire continued... The Real Walrus 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a wiki article for the known world? (according to classic antiquity, to Chinese etc). +MATIA ☎ 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Alexander I of Epirus had started a campaign to conquer the west. I'm puzzled +MATIA ☎ 15:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to the "known world" is preposterous, and should be removed. It's also a little embarrassing, as it makes us Westerners seem ignorant of the rest of the world. A solution is to specify "the world known to the Mediterranean civilizations"; that covers the combined knowledge of Macedon, Greece/Hellas, Semites, Egypt, the Persian Empire, et al. Currently the phrase links to "Ptolemy world map", which doesn't help. --Adamgarrigus 03:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander son of Philip

"Alexandros Filippou Makedonon" meant Alexander son of Philip the Macedon but I'm not sure about the exact hellenic version. +MATIA ☎ 13:54, November 9, 2005 (UTC)

I just saw http://www.engonopoulos.gr/_homeEL/painting.oil.triplo6.html - Alexander had written a message sending 300 shields to Athens "Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων". +MATIA ☎ 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This should mean "Alexander [son] of Philip and the Greeks except the Spartans". Any idea if it compares in a book or is an inscription? Aldux 15:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My english aren't very good - yes, when I wrote message I mean an inscription accompanying the shields - I'll reply when I find a relevant source. +MATIA ☎ 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Conquest of India?

Let me begin by saying that I am from the part of India (east of River Beas) where Alexander supposedly stopped and his army mutinied. Now, I see that on the "Alexander" page on wiki, a bold claim of "CONQUEST of INDIA" is made. It is wrong at so many levels. Firstly, most of you guys editing this page are probably Europoean or of similar origin, so go ahead say whatever you feel like.

But mind you, there will "soon" be a billion people in India reading Wikipedia, and they are not going to be very impressed by this state of affair. As you all know the historical accounts which you so confidently rely on were written 300 ot more years later, thousands of miles away from where the incidents happened. We already know what kinds of fanciful tales Herodotus had to tell : "semen of people in india is black" !!

So, I wouldnt pay too much credence to these ancient great historians. If you want to say things like there was a battle with Porus, that is fine. But do not go outright claiming victory, as that account was told 300-400 years later sitting way back in Greece. The accounts we know of in Punjab (and in other texts) is totally different. And who knows whether that was a mutiny or Alexander actually got his lunch served.

As for those coins you depict, how sure are you that they are from Pakistan. Maybe they are from the Persian war, where also Elephants were employed. Also, you say the guy being attacked is Porus??? Were you there, witnessing the battle?

And how about this article claiming totally different accoutn based on Ethiopic Texts translated by E. A. W. Badge http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593

Signed: ustadny

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ustadny (talk • contribs) 06:40, November 18, 2005.

You're nuts. No, Alexander didn't conquer all of India (which wasn't unified at the time anyway). He conquered part of what is now Pakistan. That's fact. It wasn't made up centuries later. We don't have any documents from Alexander's time, but ancient historians writing centuries later (like Arrian) had shitloads of them to draw upon. Get your facts straight. By the way, that comment about there being "soon" one billion Indians...what's up with that?! Even if all them believed as you do (which I doubt), it doesn't matter how many people believe something if it's not true. Although most of history is open to interpretation at some level, that doesn't mean it's okay to depart completely from fact. Biff Loman 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So that's what they've been doing in India nowadays? Okay. Now we know. Interesting link, by the way. But before dumping large sections of dubious text into Alexander the Great's article, how about you guys start an article on the Ethiopic document in question, which was probably translated nearly a century ago by E. A. Wallis Budge, the Egyptologist? The Ethiopian texts are historical documents in a sense, whether they are wrong or right, and what they have to say should be mentioned in Wikipedia---somewhere. But don't expect to change the article to "Alexander the Ordinary", because it will remain at Alexander the Great. Cutting off noses and ears doesn't make a man less Megas ;) . Alexander 007 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"But don't expect to change the article to "Alexander the Ordinary", because it will remain at Alexander the Great." It is important that we seperate the legendary Alexander from the historical Alexander as best we can. Otherwise we might as well be repeating legends about Alexander travelling to the bottom of the sea in a glass bubble, and other wild tales. --- Zeno of Elea 22:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree about discerning legend from history. I want provocative additions to the article to be made carefully. A separate article should be started for the Ethiopian texts (once the Budge translation is at hand), and it can be linked to after a brief summary. But the last User started a large section on it in the main article. (By the way, wasn't the dude's name E. A. Wallis Budge, not "E.A.W. Badge", as Ustadny's link says? hmm...) Alexander 007 22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

While the extant accounts of Alexander's conquests date from 300 (in the case of Diodorus) to 450 (in the case of Arrian and Plutarch) years after Alexander, it is completely unjust to pretend that they are legends. Arrian based his account closely on two primary sources of Alexander's campaigns - the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, both of whom were on the campaign. Arrian also cites his sources fairly closely, so that we have quite a good idea of Ptolemy's whole narrative, and also of where Aristobulus differs from it. Diodorus and Quintus Curtius's accounts are largely based on the work of Cleitarchus, who was not himself on campaign with Alexander, but who was a contemporary and clearly spoke to people who were. Cleitarchus's account, it should be added, is clearly unfavorable to Alexander. If Alexander was beaten at the Hydaspes, one would expect that Cleitarchus would have said so, and that this version would have appeared in Diodorus or Quintus Curtius. On the contrary, Cleitarchus, as depicted in Diodorus, clearly shows that Alexander was victorious, as do all the other classical sources. As far as separating the legendary Alexander from the historical Alexander, I fully agree. Which is why we ought to respect the universal judgment of the classical narratives and of professional ancient historians, rather than changing the article to suit the arguments of a completely unsourced article on a dubious website. john k 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander conquered (parts of) India, but what was called India at his time, is now called Pakistan. +MATIA ☎ 13:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please update the section of Alexander the great battle with porus with atleast giving a small link to the alternate story (if you feel putting the alternate story in the document is shameful). This is democracy - not monopoly of somebody to decide what is right or what is wrong. Also, please change the country name India to Hindustan (unified country of India and Pakistan before separation) and that way it will put in clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.220.217 (talk • contribs) 10:00, January 25, 2006 (UTC).

The present anon. editor is the same who is now trying to put the same nationalistic views in Porus, Purushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River. I have tried to explain him that wikipedia does not exist to be a safe haven for all sort of nationalists, so if any one has some time please monitor the three said articles, and consider partecipating to the discussion going on at Talk:Porus. Thanks! Aldux 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How can a website like this be serious when anybody writes anything .

This Encyclopedia is a joke and a breeding ground for idiots, nationalists, racist, everybody else willing to rewrite history the way they like it.

You main fault is that this is not specifically stated. There are people who dont know that and undertand every fantasy written here as a fact from a serious Online Encyclopedia. So long —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.102.86 (talk • contribs) 13:19, November 23, 2005 (UTC).

Well, we're sorry you feel that way. --Merovingian 13:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

it is true that the place is teeming with nationalists, but they tend to cancel each other out :) just try to have it your way, and you'll see where the difficulty lies dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even a member of this site, but I think this is a lot better than some encyclopedia. There are millions of users with many different backgrounds who verify and argue the information. This is better that just the opinion of a small group of people. All the info here is researched, argued, and verified. (GUEST:Xylo) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.113.88 (talk • contribs) 00:05, December 6, 2005 (UTC).

Personally, I often find the talk page more informative than the article itself - and very entertaining --Tharyps 12 December 2005

Please update the section of Alexander the great battle with porus with atleast giving a small link to the alternate story (if you feel putting the alternate story in the document is shameful). This is democracy - not monopoly of somebody to decide what is right or what is wrong. Also, please change the country name India to Hindustan (unified country of India and Pakistan before separation) and that way it will put in clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.220.217 (talk • contribs) 08:55, January 25, 2006 (UTC).

I really believe in this site even though I only learned about it a month ago. This is definatly better than some encyclopedia set you buy of some greasy saleman who knocks on you're door at ungodly hours of the day. I mean think about it at least here if you have a problem with the information posted here you can do something about it (bitch, complain, start riot, etc.:)

Greece

I know many Greeks like to see their ethnonym as often as possible in the intro of this article, but since Greece links to an article about the "Hellenic Republic", saying "Pella, Macedon, Greece" makes about as much sense as "Pella, Macedon, Greece, European Union" (viz., it is an anachronism). Macedon is the proper designation of the historical state Pella was the capital of. Whether Macedon was part of some entity that may be called "Greece" (e.g. the Greek peninsula) is to be explored on the Macedon article. It certainlly wasn't part of the "Hellenic Republic", which was founded in AD 1829. dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

No Question exists. Alexander the Great was Greek, born in the Greek State; Macedon, which is in no way affiliated or made as reference to modern day skopje (FYROM) User:211.30.210.219 moved by Alf ^melmac 14:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Indian History

To Aldux, who reverted my changes, the text of the email that I sent to you. Hi,

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. That being the case, the knowledge that Alexander's Indian exploits are disputed by Indian historians based on Indian texts should be made available. If you felt that my words were nationalistic in nature, you could have edited it as such, rather than reverting it completely.

The fact remains that much of current Indian history revolves around the time of Alexander's invasion, which is accurately determined. What is being disputed is: who was the Indian king/emperor during Alexander's invasion. The current version is that it was Chandragupta Maurya. Some Indian historians dispute it & claim that it was the time of Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II. The truth of what exactly happened here determines the entire Indian history itself, since it disputes a date range of around 1500 years.

It is important that the version that Alexander was victorious in India & the king ruling India at that time is disputed by some segments, and this knowledge ought to be made available.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Regards, Saiswa

Actual changes that were reverted

Alexander's Indian exploits are primarily documented based on Megasthenes' Indica and is disputed by some Indian historians. The date of Alexander's invasion is currently used to document Indian history, based on Megasthenes' reference to Sandrokotus & Sandrokipten. The current generally accepted version is that Chandragupta Maurya was the Indian emperor during Alexander's invasion. This has been disputed by Indian historians based on Indian records and discrepancies in Megathenes' accounts (including no reference to Chanakya, Chandragupta's powerful minister), who claim that it was probably Samudragupta & Chandragupta II who were reigning during that time, bringing Chandragupta Maurya's reign to around the much earlier 1500 BC. The same Indian historians claim that Alexander was probably defeated by the powerful Indian empire at that time, during which war he incurred the grievous injury, and that the Indica chose not to document this, which would puncture Alexander's aura.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saiswa (talk • contribs) 16:02, December 18, 2005 (UTC).

No legitimate historians actually believe that Alexander and Seleucus were contemporaries of the Gupta dynasty. This is crackpot stuff, and shouldn't appear in our article. john k 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

as we are entering the 21st century, many Indian "scholars" are still stuck in the dream history set down in the Puranas, where anything respectable has been dust for at least 5,000 years. This stuff has no place in a reasonable encyclopedia except in an article on Indian sociology. "NPOV" does not mean that every crackpot view gets an equal voice. dab (ᛏ) 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please update the section of Alexander and the great battle with porus with atleast giving a small link to the alternate story (if you feel putting the alternate story in the document is shameful). This is democracy - not monopoly of somebody to decide what is right or what is wrong. Also, please change the country name India to Hindustan (unified country of India and Pakistan before separation) and that way it will put in clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.220.217 (talk • contribs) 08:58, January 25, 2006 (UTC).

The present anon. editor is the same who is now trying to put the same nationalistic views concerning the Battle of the Hydaspes River in Porus, Purushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River. I have tried to explain him that wikipedia does not exist to be a safe haven for all sort of nationalists, so if any one has some time please monitor the three said articles, and consider partecipating to the discussion going on at Talk:Porus. Thanks! Aldux 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians, Greeks

Perhaps the recent edit conflict can be solved by placing a note after Macedonians ¹ and/or Greeks ², very briefly explaining the dilemma and/or at least making clear that by separating Macedonians and Greeks Wikipedia is not taking a stance on whether the Ancient Macedonians (of AlexanderTG's time and before) were Hellenes or not. Really, the evidence is not clear enough either way and scholars are still debating. Alexander 007 02:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

this is certainly good enough. It is well established that the ethno-linguistic status of the Ancient (pre-Philipp-II) Macedonians is disputed. NPOV dictates that we simply say so, and take no stance. This is the only way open to Wikipedia, and anybody trying to "correct" this (from either the Greek or the Slavic side) is introducing bias in violation of WP policy. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ghirla | talk 15:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Per talk, I've placed the note and made the edits. If people challenge this, remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when making any edits. This note does not represent "my views", since I expect a Greco-Macedonian classification for the Ancient Macedonian language, but that's not the only hypothesis considered by linguists (others include simply a Greek dialect, or an independent Indo-European language). So before people foam at the mouth, remember Wikipedia's policies. Alexander 007 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, WP:NPOV, same old story. I still don't see how your edits reflect a "no-stance". You explicitely differentiate between Greeks and Macedonians and add some remote note. That's is far from not taking a stance. The Hellenic Graeco-macedonian however is very much in the middle and widely used. And why is the fact that Alexander and Philip considered themselves Greeks also constantly ignored by wikipedia, as if it's insignificant? It could at least be stated that the Kings of Macedon viewed themselves and were viewed by others as Greeks, that's undisputable even by you. Honestly Decius, do you think really expect people to believe that you have no agenda on this issue? You constantly try to differentiate Greeks from Macedonians by any means necessary. You even supported the Macedonian Slavs into claiming "genetic ancestry" from ancient Macedonians (whatever that means). So please stop pretending to be some editor who cares about NPOV and the WP policies, it underestimates people's intelligence. Miskin 12:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny nobody is making the same distinctions between Athenians and Spartans. Why not? Is it that the FYROMian propagandists have been only focusing on Macedonian propaganda? FYROM propaganda a small collection. Spartans had a different culture, a different dialect, and different government than Athenians. Spartans were war-like, and were not democratic and philosophical like the Athenians. I guess by such Philosophy the Spartans were not Hellenic also. Same goes for the Cretans, and the rest of Greece. Oh, and there was no Hellenic Republic then or a Greece. So the rest of ancient "Greece" cannot be Greek either, due to the fact that it was at that time a collection of different city states which were quite different in their philosophy of life, culture, and governmental rule. Was there a difference between city states? No doubt there was. Was there a difference between Macedonians and Athenians? No doubt. What great "historian" is focusing on these differences and trying to conjure up the notion that Macedonians were not a Greek tribe or city state is beyond me and many others that study history. Macedonians spoke a very close dialect of Greek, worshipped Greek gods, wanted revenge for Persias attacks (yes even Alexander did), Philip wanted to unite Greece (peacefully at first and then used forceful means). Yes Athenians thought Macedonians were a bit barbaric. Who wouldn't if most of them were great thinkers, philosophers, sculpters, democratic, big wigs that thought highly of themselves, and rightly so at the time as that was a golden age of Greece.

You can expand the differences between Athenians and Macedonians all you want, however it will be an impossible hypothesis to prove that Macedonians were in fact Slavic people that migrated 700CE into ancient Macedonia and are in fact ancient Macedonians (i.e people from FYROM). Stick to differentiating Macedonians and "Greeks". Thats easy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.4.29 (talk • contribs) 18:49, January 3, 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it is easy. Alexander 007 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please update the section of Alexander the great battle with porus with atleast giving a small link to the alternate story (if you feel putting the alternate story in the document is shameful). This is democracy - not monopoly of somebody to decide what is right or what is wrong. Also, please change the country name India to Hindustan (unified country of India and Pakistan before separation) and that way it will put in clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.109.220.217 (talk • contribs) 08:58, January 25, 2006 (UTC).

Post Evidence of A Slavic Dialect During Alexander's Time

Please post evidence of a slavic dialect during Alexander's time. i.e. Artifacts containing Proto-Slavic dialect or a slavic dialect similar to the one spoken today by people of FYROM. Ancient coins, monuments, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.4.29 (talk • contribs) 18:17, January 3, 2006 (UTC).

sorry, I don't have any; roll your own :) dab (ᛏ) 08:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What about those ancient Cyrillic inscriptions that were found in Vergina? Oh, and don't forget the Slavic coinage. Miskin 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Post artifacts here (ie external links) don't mention them, anyone can do that. Confirm that they are of Slavic dialect (as experts agree many slavic dialects were recently created - and did not exist North of Greece until recent historical times). Good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.4.29 (talk • contribs) 23:02, January 7, 2006 (UTC).

well, yes, "ancient" if you consider AD 864 "ancient". It's called Cyrillic for a reason :op (I know, it's a misnomer, it is actually even later than the Glagolitic alphabet) dab (ᛏ) 15:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol, exactly my point. AD 864 is not the time of alexander. At least there a few people here that read history and not internet info only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.4.29 (talk • contribs) 23:04, January 7, 2006 (UTC).

I know Greeks will be furious

I know Greeks will be furious and Macedonians will be too. But I'm Macedonian so take this from me. Alexander first of all he loved Hephastion in a homosexual way (which was common then) second of all he loved is horse in the same way too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arvand (talk • contribs) 03:15, January 16, 2006 (UTC).

It is very strongly implied that Alexander had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion, but it is not, to my knowledge, ever actually spelled out literally.

As for Bucephalus, his horse, what you claim is very far from historical basis. We know that he loved his horse...as a HORSE. Bucephalus had been with him for the entirety of his campaign, had stayed true to him the entire time, and was possibly Alexander's deepest comrade in his conquests. This does not imply that he had sexual relations with his horse, he simply recognized the danger that Bucephalus went into for his sake and loved his 'pet' for the unwaivering devotion. --Galileo 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone found any references to Alexanders supposide beastiality, becuase i'd doubt that there would be.--Fabio 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Section about Alexander's Character biased?

I have a concern that the section about Alexander's character seems to be showing him as a crazy guy obsessed with taking over the world. While that may be a consensus among the majority of historians, a minority consider Alexander to be one of the greatest rulers the world has ever seen. His rule was a significant improvement for the people of the Middle East in the areas of freedom, liberty and human rights in general and he was known for having been tolerant of the Jews. I'm going to wait to edit the text of the section until we can reach a consensus.

Eclipse KOG 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How exactly was the section biased? Please, cite examples, for it in my opinion does very well at playing at both interpretations of his character. "Modern opinion on Alexander has run the gamut from the idea that he believed he was on a

• divinely-inspired mission to unite the human race, to the view that he was
• a megalomaniac bent on world domination."

both sides are expressed continually throughout the section. It protrays him both as great ruler and bad. I think the section does very well at showing the difficulty in analyzing the chararacter of a figure that has been largely mythologized.

Galileo Ali 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, the section does indeed present an objective, even handed assesment of historians' views.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.142.132.97 (talk • contribs) .

Actually he was obsessed with taking over the world, specially the Persian Empire. Also, he's rule was not IMPROVEMENT for middle east, at least not for Persia. He sacked and destroyed many cities of Persia, including Persepolis, the capital of Persian Empire. (66.36.158.213 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Alexander in India

I've copied this comment by anon 192.94.94.105, (who also uses: 192.94.94.106, 192.91.75.29 and 192.91.75.30) here from my talk page, since I think it is more appropriate to have this discussion here. Paul August ☎ 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC):

(Start of copied text)

Tell me why is a written source not acceptable. Note Arrian wrote based on Ptolemy who was not present at this battle. Plutarch similarly wrote the account more then hundred years later. Oliver Stone made the movie Alexander after much research and if you watch the film he almost shows Alexander lost to Porus. There is no funny business of "treat me like a king" from Porus. Few more things to look at, after Jhelum alexander walked down Indus, alone, and fought the malli tribe who pierced his armor and shot an arrow through his ribs and he almost died. If Porus was his vassal he would have accompanied Alexander. But Porus did not accompany him. It is also mentioned Alexander gave a whole bunch of gold to Porus, now why would a victor give his wealth to a looser? Alexander's army refused to go any further. Note the terrain to get to Jhelum is a lot tougher then ambulating in the ganges plain of India. So his army had already done the hardwork. They did not turn back because of 8 years of war or whatever. They turned back because they saw so many of there fellow soldiers die. Lastly, Greeks want to portray Porus as king of India. India at that time was ruled by Nanda dynasty and Porus was a vassal of Magadha. So one cannot say 'Alexander's conquest of India'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.94.105 (talk • contribs) 07:40, January 29, 2006 (UTC).

(end of copied text)

To 192.9x.xx... : In addition to the biography of Alexander by Ptolemy, Arrian had available to him contemporary accounts Alexander by Callisthenes, Onesicritus, Nearchus and Aristobulus, as well as the slightly later work of Cleitarchus. According to our article on Ptolemy, he was part of Alexander's personal body-guards, and played a "principal part" in the campaign in India. What is your source for saying Ptolemy was not present at the Battle of the Hydaspes River? Paul August ☎

Paul,

From this site: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html"

Ptolemy was born in 367 and was a youth friend of Alexander. He took part in the battle of Issus, joined the journey to the oracle of Ammon, was present during the burning of Persepolis (his mistress Thais played an important role; text), and had his first independent commands during the wars in Sogdia.

So ptolemy was not present at Jhelum.

192.91.75.29 06:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Though Craterus was second in command as so often, he remained on the right bank, essential in keeping Porus' attention fixed on what appeared still to be the undiminished main camp while Alexander crossed the Indus upstream; "some said Ptolemy was left behind to raise a diversion, but Ptolemy himself insisted that he sailed with the leaders and fought as hard as the rest of them." (Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (1973) ch. 25, p 355). An editor who signs in is often taken more seriously at Wikipedia. --Wetman 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is another view on the role of Craterus and Ptolemy.

http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/craterus/craterus.htm

http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemy_i_soter.htm

192.91.75.29 12:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

192.9x, thanks for signing your posts. I don't see where the quote you give above says that Ptolemy was absent from the battle? Nor do I see such a statment in any of the three web pages you reference. Can you quote a passage which states that Ptolemy was not at the battle? Paul August ☎ 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Craterus web page says : A first sign may have been his task during the battle on the Hydaspes river (modern Jhelum). Craterus commanded the rearguard, which stayed on the western bank; Alexander and Coenus did the real fighting, and Craterus' men only crossed the battle during the final stages of the battle.

No such mention of Ptoelmy on Hydaspes.

192.91.75.30 10:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that that web page fails to mention that he was there, doesn't mean they are asserting that he wasn't there. I find Robin Lane Fox more convincing. Do you have any other source for saying Ptolemy wasn't at the battle? Paul August ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From Ptolemy article on livius.org it is clear the duo Arrian and Ptolemy are not trustworthy: The historian Arrian of Nicomedia records Ptolemy's presence during the battle in the Persian gate, but as Arrian's account is based on Ptolemy's own History of Alexander, and other sources are silent about his actions, we must probably take Arrian's story with a grain of salt.

We can agree to disagree on Ptolemy's role during Hydaspes. But this is not the main thread of discussion as alexander in India should be our focus.

203.101.61.7 09:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While we cannot assume that everything that Arrian wrote is the absolutely correct (as with any source), I find no reason to assume that Ptolemy was absent from the battle. In addition as I wrote above, Arrian had other contemporary accounts of Alexander by Callisthenes, Onesicritus, Nearchus and Aristobulus, as well as the slightly later work of Cleitarchus. Thus I find Arrian's account more credible than the accounts used by Budge. Quoting Aldux (see Talk:Porus#reverts between User:192.94.94.105 and User:Aldux), "Budge's work a century ago (1896) is really a translation of a medieval ethiopic texts that is a redaction from the Arabic version of the Alexander Romance, which in turn is a version of the first one, the Greek one by the Pseudo-Callisthenes, a fantastic story of the exploits of Alexander. Every new version brought radical changes to the Pseudo-Callisthenes (i.e. he became Christian, or a prophet of Islam)." — Paul August ☎ 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To 203.101.61.7: are you the same person who edited above with the various IP's beginning with "192" above? If so, and If you don't wish to create an account, and you want to continue to use several IP addresses, could you sign your posts in some unique way -- you can simply make up a nick name to use. Thanks Paul August ☎ 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of " India " is correct, as this was the term used by the ancients for this whole land. The " defeat " of Alexander against Porus is an absurdity, based on nationalist texts who are not even considered by serious Indian historians. The nationalists used the same propaganda than the ancient indians kings, who never put on stone that they lost against a stranger... ( like any royal propaganda, of course. ) In the same way, it's the same historians who are saying that the son of Seleucos Nikator was also defeat in India, arguing that he married his daughter with an indian king ang let him in charge. Yeah, and the 500 elephants ( who are historically attested in the battles who follows in middle-East )offered by this indian kings where just a gift and absolutly note a tribute, of course ? That this battle was difficult is certain, but Alexander finally prevail.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.7.247 (talk • contribs) 13:55, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

What if....

Just some "What if..." question.

What if Alexander the Great didn't die early, would he returned back to further East Asia and conquer China? (Some argue that he could, since China on that time was virtually in civil war Warring States Period which leave them open for attack by an discipled "Outside Barbarians").

Would Alexanders empire last long enough to stop Rome expansion in the West?

Would the today Central Asia look different than present day?

Alot of What if question I am sure. However I personally think that like all "great" empire no matter how invicible their army or society is, sooner or later it will crumble in a matter of time.

hanchi 1 February 2006.

Macedonia's edits

I haven't yet settled on the best way to phrase the sentences that Macedonia changed, but his version is inaccurate. In the first place, the fact that Alexander integrated Greeks in his army is not something notable, since Philip also did this. What is notable is that he integrated non-Macedonians, non-Greeks to a degree previously unseen; so saying "integrating non-Macedonians" is inaccurate. Alexander 007 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aldux's edits on this topic. But to quote someone above: "I know Greeks will be furious" when I quote these passages that give us an insight into Macedonian/Greek relations in Hellenistic times (these quotes pertain to things happening in Greece): from Plutarch's Aratus of Sicyon biography: "or if he thought the Achaean affairs desperate, to have yielded all up to Cleomenes, and not to have let Peloponnesus fall once again into barbarism with Macedonian garrisons, and Acro-Corinthus be occupied with Illyric and Gaulish soldiers..."; "Cleomenes may have been arbitrary and tyrranical, yet he was descended from the Heraclidae, and Sparta was his country, the obscurest citizens of which deserved to be preferred to the generalship before the best of the Macedonians by those that had any regard to the honour of Grecian birth."---I got more quotes like this, but that's enough to show that even after all Alexander did, the Greeks still, generally speaking, seem to have resented the Macedonians for awhile. Alexander 007 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what does this tell us about the "Macedonians were Dorians" theory? :) Alexander 007 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why Alexander 007 and Aldux are making a big deal out of these minor edits. I am only maintaing the neutrality of whether the ancient Macedonians were a Greek people or not, a topic that is unclear and controversial among historians today. Notice that I am putting His conquests ushered in centuries of Macedonian and Greek settlement and rule over foreign areas by putting both ethnic groups, it concludes a neutral statement, instead of only "Greek settlement" which is implying that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. I also dont see anything wrong with Alexander himself lived on in the history and myth of both western and eastern cultures. - Macedonia

"East and west" strikes me as an arbitrary division. What kind of cultural distinctions do we want to draw the reader's attention to here? Further, "Macedonian and Greek settlements" is likely to leave the reader with the inaccurate idea that there were two distinct types of post-Alexandrian settlements, which is saying either too little or too much. Jkelly 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

84.254.6.165's edits

Since edits of this type are often placed in the article, and invariably removed, a brief explanation of the removal follows: the dispute concerning the Greekness or non-Greekness etc. of the ancient Macedonians is a dispute among scholars---historians, linguists, etc.---and it predates the political claims and ethnic claims of the Macedonians (ethnic group), so 84.254.6.165's edits are vastly droll and irrelevant, as well as POV clap-trap. Alexander 007 02:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a bibliography at the moment, but K. O. Müller in 1825 for example suggested that the Ancient Macedonian language was "an Illyrian dialect mixed with Greek". And there are many more early examples. It's an old scholarly debate which continues. Alexander 007 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Titling

Shouldn't it be "Alexander III of Macedonia", since "the great" was a posthumous epithet? -Alex, 12.220.157.93 06:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

No. Most people are going to be searching (whether on google or in a Wiki search or whatever) for Alexander the Great, thus the most common name in English is preferred. Alexander 007 06:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've recently added this succession number to the internal headline and appropriate Greek transliteration. Brandmeister 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Name of Article

I do not see why this article should be called "Alexander the Great". "Alexander III of Macedon" would be much more fitting in an encyclopedia. First of all, that was his official name. Secondly it is only one viewpoint that he is "great". Would the Persians under Darius have regarded him as great? I do not understand why this is one of the few articles about a king, queen, or regent, etc. which uses an adjective to describe the individual in its title. For example, Ivan the Terrible is under the article "Ivan IV of Russia," Catherine the Great is called "Catherine II of Russia," Richard the Lionheart is "Richard I of England," Henry the Fowler is "Henry I of Germany," Louis the Pious is "Louis I of France," and William the Conquerer is "William I of England." I urge people to change the name of this article to make it sound more credible. AmbExThErMaL 22:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Why don't you just change it then and state your argument, which is a good one. Be bold.

Wikipedia's name policy is generally to use the name most commonly used, as that is the one people are most likely to look up. This seems sensible to me. IMO Catherine the Great ought to be filed under Catherine the Great--etc. Nareek 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are there not any quotes from Plutarch, Arrian or Diodurus posted about Alexander's sexuality?

It seems someone is deliberately ommiting these important authors for the sole reason that they portay Alexander as a heterosexual. For example, Plutarch clearly states that his only true love was Roxana whom he fell in love with instantly. There is nothing that mentions Alexnader being invloved with males. Second, most scholars have agreed that Arrianus Flavius was the most reliable source about Alexander. He along with Plutarch were the only authors who wrote about Alexander using original sources. Curtius on the other hand used second hand sources (at least). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.169.126 (talk • contribs) 00:30, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

Quick answer to this one. If the unsigned contributer above would like to register as a user, he or she would be free to add such quotes to the article. Personally, I think the article puts the evidence and different viewpoints in a balanced way. It is very difficult to know what 'floated the boat' of an individual who died millenia ago, so the issue will probably never be resolved. Indisciplined 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander son of Philip - Arrian and Plutarch

I've got sources for that. It was after the Battle at Granicus, see 1, and the original texts in Greek: 2 and 3. Alexander send to Athens 300 shields (aka panoplies) with the inscription "Alexander the son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians from the Barbarians who dwell in Asia." This was a message to the Spartans too, who didn't join Alexander's campaign (Sparta's law didn't allow them to go under a non-Spartan leader). Some scholars make the association with Thermopylae (300 shields for the 300 Spartans who died at that battle). talk to +MATIA 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

this is not a shield

right|thumb|The Smallville version of the Shield of Alexander the Great, as seen in the first season episode, "Rogue"Why is this artifact labeled a shield? It is very obviously a cuirass, unless I am missing something. Haiduc 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexander's (Greek) name meaning

During the past few days I tried to add the meaning - in short - of the name of Alexander in Greek which is "protector of men". User Aldux deleted it commenting "alexandros is already in the first line". When I tried again pointing out that "The Greek meaning of Alexander's name should also be mentioned" it got deleted again by another excuse "I disagree - if we follow this, we should do the same with William Smith or George Bush". I am sorry but i don't understand why it should be left out. (see history) This is of course not disputed and there is a Wikipedia article about it under Alexander (disambiguation)). There are many ancient Greeks with the name Alexandros (including Paris of Troy). The name is still used today and every average Greek language speaker knows the meanings of "Alex-" (=protector) and "-Andras" (=man , same as in the english word androgyne and other words) In the article there are many references to Alexander's names in other cultures and the meaning of those names. There are mentions of Zoroastrian and Persian metaphors about his name. Also - later in the article - even the meaning of his horse's name. I'm quoting it here: "Alexander had a legendary horse named Bucephalus (meaning "ox-headed")". Therefore it completely escapes me why we shouldn't keep the meaning of HIS actual name. Furthermore the George Bush comment is much irrelevant because in ancient times the name meanings were very much special and people actually changed their names to portray their character through them (although for Alexander it is not the case - his father chose it to reflect his purpose in life, i think). If the Greek meaning of his name should be left out so should much of the other much more irrelevant points about his sexuality, character and other things all around this article. This is a very short comment after all. Thank you for reading. (edit by 87.203.66.106)

---

I Agree, your 100% right. Also, I tried to put his name in Persian, which is Eskandar. Many people right now in Iran know Alexander as Eskanadar and have no idea who is is Alexander. Please stop this nonsense and let us edit the article in a very useful way. (Arad 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC))

Aldux, I can't understand why we should left this info out. Maybe we can put it elsewhere in the article, like ::: in his Character perhaps? You understand that because Alexander has some meaning as a word in Greek and is not

barely a name, this provides strong evidence of Alexander beeing Greek, which is not adequately portrayed

inside the article. Adding his name meaning is NPOV, there is a wikipedia article ::: about it.

---

There is an ongoing propaganda committed by the foreign office of FYR Macedonia which trying to convince that Alexander the Great is the direct ancestor and the cultural heritage of people living today inside this country. See the following link for more informations http://faq.macedonia.org/history/.

According to this propaganda, Alexander the Great has nothing to do with ancient Greece and this relation is just a misleading, a Greek conspiracy.

Keeping that in mind it is very easy to understand why the etymology of the name of Alexander is something that must be kept hidden from the public.

---

Verification requested

File:Shir-sangi.jpg

Hephaestion's tomb??

Does anybody know where was Hephaestion's body actually buried? We do know he died in hamedan, but was his body moved to babylon or not? I have a source (Persian book) from Iran's National Heritage Organization saying that this (and another destroyed twin lion statue standing opposite to this one) were built by the orders of Alexander in Hamedan in remembrance of Hephaestion (Alexander's gay lover), when being buried.

Can anybody verify this please?--Zereshk 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this source [1] Hephaestion was buried in Babylon. another source also says that he was buried in Babylon [2]. According to what i know, Hephaestion was buried in Babylon. but u are right in your second point: Hamedan is ancient Ecbatana for the Greeks, so as the 2nd source i provided says (by interpreating ancient authors' writings) he (Alexander) ordered the shrine of Asclepius in Ecbatana to be razed to the ground. i guess that this lion is what remains from the monument built for Hephaestion by Alexander, not in the place that he was buried, but in the place he died. Hope i helped:) --Hectorian 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It does. Thanx.--Zereshk 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quintus Curtius Rufus

Does anyone want to weigh in on the problem at Quintus Curtius Rufus? It's a conflict that started out as a revert war and has moved anywhere since--we need more input. Nareek 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty/Colossus of Rhodes

The statue of liberty is known as the New Colossus. We know that the Colossus of Rhodes was originally Alexander, as he was portrayed as Helios - the Sun God. The Statue of Liberty is unmistakably the face of Alexander the Great - and I think that the statue of liberty should be added to this article in honor of Alexander.Alexandria Dawn 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can find no reference to the colossus of Rhodes being Alexander, and, the last time I looked anyway, the statue of liberty was a woman, hence the "Lady" in "Lady Liberty", and, IMO, it doesn't look like the known representations of Alexander anymore than I do, and I don't. And finally Wikipedia is not about honouring anybody, its about creating and developing factual articles--KaptKos 17:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Hitler and Alexander the same person?

Paramahansa Yogananda had claimed that Adolf Hitler was Alexander in one of his past lives to some of his disciples. Many people would view this as absurd but let us consider the similiarities in personality between these two historical figures. But were known for their cruel behaviours and their love for conquest. Hitler had a sub-conscious love for Hindu thought. The swastika sysmbol is a Hindu design and Alexander had a Hindu spiritual teacher who is mentioned in the Autobiography of a Yogi. Should we include this controversial piece of information in the article? Any comments or feedback? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What most people don't know is that the first parallel between Hitler and Alexander III was drawn by Hitler himself in the last page of Mein Kampf. Supporting this parallel is far from making a modern, open-minded, original conclusion; it is in fact a subconcsious promotion of Hitler's views. The swastika symbol was a parallel of various different, unrelated civilisations (it exists in Mycenaean pottery) and is not confined to India. Hence I'm afraid that much of your not-so-credible theory collapses. Miskin 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I thank you for enlightening me about the swastika symbol. I was not aware that the swastika symbol existed in the Mycenaean civilization. But you failed to mention about Paranmahansa Yoganada's comments and observations about Hitler. Here, we have a highly respected Hindu guru telling some of his disciples about Hitler's past lives. Surely this is not from a not-so-credible source. Secondly, this is a theory that may never be proved by the ordinary public as reincarnation is not possible to be verified by scientific means. Anyway, these kinds of information about past lives is highly unaccessible by the ordinary masses as they have no knowledge about life after death and thus view these theories as nonsense. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if we assume that Paranmahansa Yoganada had never read nor heard about Hitler's self-comparison to Alexander, I still don't think that a Hindu's psychic observations can be regarded as credible scientific material. I hope you see the reason. It's not about being part of the ordinary or non-ordinary masses, it's simply about credibility. Even if I were 100% agreed with you, we'd still be powerless to promote those views since the current scholarly consensus doesn't recognise it at all. It would fall under original reasearch. I'm not even sure that those views would fit in the Indian wikipedia. Miskin 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot compare Adolf Hitler to Alexander the Great. Alexander treated the people he conquered as equal citizens within his empire. Adolf Hitler killed people he conquered, burned down thousands of villages, and murdered 6 million Jews. Alexander spread Hellenism, taught people how to read and write when they did not even know how to wipe their own ass, and built great cities. You cannot compare the two.66.233.19.170 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander's sexuality

The section Alexander's marriages and sexuality continues expanding in an article that has already touched 63KB, with warring factions (anon. editors, generally) for or against his homosexuality. I propose building a new article on the subject which would take the material in the present article; here would remain a very brief summary that would mention his sons, his women and his relationship with Hephaestion. And we could send to the main article for those interested in knowing more on the argument.--Aldux 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be seen as a POV fork. Why not create two articles, on one his personal life and another on his military exploits? Haiduc 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain me why it would be POV? After all it wouldn't be simply on his sexuality, but more generally on his personal life. And it's common to create sub-articles when an article has considerable dimensions. As for an article on Alexander's military exploits, that section can't be reasonably reduced in the present article.--Aldux 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Breaking out his sexuality will segregate a contentious issue from less debated ones, serving to some extent the purpose of those trying to sanitize his image. It seems to me that three articles should be created, one "Alexander the great" briefly summarizing, in a couple of paragraphs, his image and role in history; one with his personal life, "Personal life of Alexander" including birth, death, and relationships; and another, "Conquests of Alexander" with his military exploits. 63K is too much to maintain, the article is unwieldy as it is. Haiduc 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If we always keep in mind that Wikipedia is a service to readers we can avoid much of this kind of thing. --Wetman 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not try to homosexualize Alexander the Great. There is nowhere nearly enough evidence to even present it as a possibility. MegasAllexandros 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

MACEDONIANS?

You must not ask yourselves if “Alexander the Great” was Greek. It is useless to play with the words, “He was not Greek he was Macedonian…” “All tribes were named Greek much later...”. What we must specify is that the people that are naming themselves “Macedonians” (and I don’t refer to the people that live in northern Greece) are NOT the “descendants of the ancient Macedonians. First of all think about the language they are talking. It is Cyrillic or Slavic. It is not the language the ancient Macedonians were talking, which was ancient Greek. That shows that this people are descendants of the Slavic tribes, the nomads that were going here and there and they settled at the place centuries after the empire of Alexander “died”. So they don’t have the right to call themselves “Macedonians”. Macedonia has nothing to do with them. When the Greeks were producing Philosophy they were still banging rocks to make Fire. Minas.

Semiprotection needed

This article is being repeatedly vandalised by anons the last few days. Check history.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition to references?

The following was added. I don't think it belongs here as a reference.

• Family, History. Alexander's Descents(1986) Local Researcher Bradd Walker found out that some of Alexander's descendants were reknowned under the names of Tabilha, Booker, Sexton, Smith, Taybor, Holiway, Moorefield, and Faulkner

Thoughts? Jkelly 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See previous headline.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who was the guy?

Edits to Alexander the Great and Cleophis were blocked by someone two days ago. Who could be that guy????

KLS alias Sze cavalry01 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mary Renault on Demosthenes as Regicide

Mary Renault, in Fire from Heaven, accuses Demosthenes of being among the plotters for the assassination of King Phillip, based on a "prophecy" by Demosthenes as to the exact time and method of the king's death. Renault, quite reasonably, suspects that Demosthenes knew these details ahead of time because he was a conspirator himself.Das Baz 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

edited the Early Life refering to Bucephalus

i edited the part of the early life narating how Alexander got Bucephalus.

originally As Alexander was walking with his father one day, they came across a few men attempting to tame and mount a wild, black horse. Alexander immediately took a liking for the horse, and begged his father if he would buy it for him. Philip laughed and told him if he could mount the horse, he would. Alexander watched the horse's behavior, and soon realized that it was merely afraid of its own shadow. He walked over to the horse and faced it towards the sun to hide its shadow, and immediately was able to mount it. His father bought the horse, and he named it Bucephalus (which means "ox-head"). Bucephalus would be his loyal steed for the next two decades until it would die in battle

my edit One time a Thessalian brought a black horse to sell it to Philip, but the horse was wild and no man could mount him. The young Alexander went to the horse, and turned him towards the sun for he had noticed that the horse was just afraid of his own shadow, then he was able to mount it and run it. His father and the people seeing it, was very impressed. And when the young Alexander returned and dismounted the horse, Philip kissed him with tears of joy and said "My son, see thee out a kingdom equal to thyself; Macedonia has not room for thee." The horse was named Bucephalus (which means "ox-head"). Bucephalus would be his companion and one of his best friends for the next two decades until when the horse died, according to Plutarch due to old age for he was already 30, other sources claimed that Bucephalus died wounded in a battle in India. Alexander then named a city after him called Bucephalia or Bucephala.