Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Alexander the Great did NOT invade India

the opening of this article states the his empire stretched till punjab, india.????? this is incorrect, Alexander and his forces did reach up until the Panjab province, but the Panjab province of Pakistan(what is the difference between Punjab Province of Pakistan and that of India, a request for the author). His forces mutineered before entering further east and ancient maps of the ancient hellenic empire correlate with the current Pakistan india border. Please correct this inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.153 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, "Alexander Invaded India" refers to what the ancient historians described as the "Indian Kingdoms" and what became the Indo-Greek kingdom in the Indian subcontinent. It certainly does not refer to modern states and peoples strifes, religious stifes or civil strifes. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not an inaccuracy. Obviously, at the time when Alexander reached Punjab, it was still part of India, but of course we could say that today it belongs to Pakistan. Greetings --Bucephala (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily Bucephala (which by the way is(horse) burried in Pakistan too near the city of Jhelum..lol!) Ancient India, in historical terms refers to the regions along the Indus river of Pakistan, a term coined by ancient Persians and Greeks. Gangetic india(where the modern day country of india is currently located) had a distinct culture and civilization hence the difference seen today. Unfortunately, when the British arrived to South Asia, they took the name of the Indus region of Pakistan and applied it to the whole of South Asia. Upon independence from British colonial rule, gangetic india took the official name much to the surprise of Pakistan's founding father M.A. Jinnah who considered it a cultural and historical hijacking of Pakistan's ancient history. It is due to this misnomer that some people confuse Alexanders Hellenic Empire and the route he took. Alexander in fact, only went up to the lands of the Indus, and that means, up to Pakistan, this should be reflected more accurately in the article. To say that the whole region is one is not factual and a dilution of history, it would be akin to the British conquering Egypt, Libya, and all of Africa, then calling the whole continent Egypt, thats what happened in South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point to note is that let us assume Alexander defeated Porus in the battle with the aid, may be minimal, of Ambhi, the King of Taxila. Then why, after the war, do we not hear of Ambhi, the victor? What logic establishes that Alexander took the coastal route, a new one instead of the route through which he came, even after his soldiers rebelled? Atleast he would have heard that Cyrus the great's army was completely destroyed in the region. Then why did he take the risk? Also, Alexander made Porus his viceroy in the region, not Ambhi and it seems that while the armies of Porus were resting, Alexander's armies occupied lands for Porus, the vanquished. Also, let us consider the battle with Porus insignificant. Even then, there should be a reference of Alexander's invasion in contemporary Indian records, as he destroyed the mighty Persian Empire. But the facts are opposite. Where does this lead to? Whether Alexander invaded India or not, did he loose the battle with Porus? What else? Also, legend says that Alexander was seriously injured in the fight with Porus. Did he die of battle wounds? Why did he not stop in India for treatment? Kindly analyze the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.236 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 July 2008

Too Glorified?

I feel that the article has been leaning towards him as being much greater than he really was. Describing him as a legend and such is going too far... wouldn't it be better to use a more neutral tongue?

• prepare for flames* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.214.41 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,isn't he Great?? He defeated a huge empire with quite small armies and spread civilisation in an enormous area... I clearly do not see your point...--Michael X the White (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, chit chatting and no proof :S Which are the non-neutral paragraphs, in your opinion? --Bucephala (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But he fared poorly with a smaller army of Porus, effectively a local chieftain and dared not attack main India. Do you call such a person great? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.236 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why does the title use 'Great' in violation of WP:NC? --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things supports the use of "Great". --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great! How can that violate anything? Why would anyone ask that question? Joe Deagan (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's the common name for him, so that's the one we should use --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, great is an honorific of a sort. What's wrong with Alexander of Macedonia? I'm not trying to be difficult but this is causing problems elsewhere (out in Mahatma Gandhi, for example). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Alexander of Macedonia, but he is known throughoght the world as Alexander the Great. Joe Deagan (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You just need to look throught the language link on the left of the page to see that this is true. On spanish and other languages he is also known as "magno", which translates roughly as "magnificient", and there is no problem with calling him like that because it's the name that all spanish historians use --Enric Naval (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's something wrong with "Alexander of Macedonia", and it has to do with the issues that spawned WP:ARBMAC. Stick with the most common English name for our subject: Alexander the Great. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That was illuminating (WP:ARBMAC). I guess this is a 'great' exception! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the regnal name of the famous eldest son of Philip II of Macedon was the common name Alexander, traditional historiography resorted to three solutions:Alexander the Macedonian, Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Great, with the last being the most popular. That is what the precedent is for, and is in keeping with all major print encyclopedias (Britannica (see here), Encarta (see here), Columbia (see here), and Webster's (see here). Traditional historiography did this routinely for famous rulers of a certain vintage: Ashoka the Great (India), Alfred the Great (Britain), Pacal the Great (Maya), Canute the Great (Viking/England), Ramkhamhaeng the Great (Siam), Herod the Great (Judea), Sejong the Great (Korea), Akbar the Great (India), Cyrus the Great (Persia), ..., and lord knows how many more ... (and let's not forget Gonzo the Great).

In other words, even if there were no problems of political correctness involving Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, it would be unlikely that the name of the page would be changed to, say, Alexander III of Macedon because the precedent from traditional historiography is strong ... Having said that, it is also true that things can change; for example, Catherine the Great redirects to Catherine II, and Peter the Great to Peter I of Russia, but it could also be that this happened because the last two are more recent figures, or because of some ideological reasons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Alexander has carried that epithet for centuries. Please, this is not something we have invented, it is his name! We have to put the most known one, so Alexander the Great is the right choice. --Bucephala (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

One more title?

I know this question has not arised here before, but since Alexander conquered the Pauravas Kingdom of India, shouldn't he just like his other titles, have a title for India?

Porus was Raja of India, and after Alexander CONQUERED HIS KINGDOM AND MORE, he did not pardon him because he did not need to, he was already fond of him for his bravery, so he only made him satrap of his own kingdom under Alexander, and thus he got the title of Raja. This is because when Porus became a satrap he could have had the title of Raja anymore, which is politically impossible, so he passed it on to Alexander. As this is explained in this excerpt from the Alexander the Great article under Invasion of India,

("Sisikottos, who had helped Alexander in this campaign, was made the governor of Aornos. After reducing Aornos, Alexander crossed the Indus and fought and is believed to have won an epic battle against a local ruler Porus (original Indian name Raja Puru), who ruled a region in the Punjab, in the Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC. Silver coin of Alexander (336-323 BCE). British Museum. After the battle, Alexander was greatly impressed by Porus for his bravery in battle, and therefore made an alliance with him and appointed him as satrap of his own kingdom, even adding some land he did not own before. Alexander then named one of the two new cities that he founded, Bucephala, in honor of the horse who had brought him to India, who had died during the Battle of Hydaspes. Alexander continued on to conquer all the headwaters of the Indus River.")

Raja Puru simply means Porus is the Raja of Pauravas(Please click on this article to get more conformation of this commment), Kingdom, or actually Paurava, because Pauravas was a number of smaller petty kingdoms, but Porus ruled all of them, and in the Alexanders conflict with the Kambojas article, it says the historians relate on how after the Gandhara kingdoms revolted, they are not sure if they got their kingdom back, so Alexander may have controlled India longer than most of his other eastern conquests. So how long he controlled India, even for 3 years is of insignifigant matter, because when a title is issued, it is right after a conquest or on a coin, which both happened to Alexander. Especially the minted of coins when he was in India. If anyone disagrees or agrees, please commment here and or on my page, thank you for reading, and goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I am the one who removed your addition. Since this looks like a small title, it will be difficult to find online sources stating explicitely if he had the actual title. However, Janjua talks about it, and it has 5 paper references stating that he Alexander allowed the raja to retain the Raja title.

I found the online version of that paragraph [1] (it's on spanish, but it says the same). This is a book about art, so it's posible that it doesn't enter into many details regarding the titles that Alexander won, and it may have gotten some details wrong on that. Also, not even this source states explicitely that he crowned himself with that title.

As for having both titles being politically imposible, well, Alexander was also told that conquering all the known world would be imposible and it didn't stop him from trying :) It would be good to look at the coin and see if it has the title of raja engraved on it. It's nice to make speculatons on what gives someone a title, we should leave the speculations to historians with more experience on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just speaking my thoughts... Alexander allowed Porus to maintain his status as ruler of India (or part of India), therefore the title remains on the hands of Porus not Alexander's... Alexander preferred people to address him as a living god (at the last years of his life) therefore as god another title would have meant nothing to him, he had conquered most of the known world... Alexander never bothered (or his army not allowed) to establish himself in India apart from building a city and taking revenue from the defeated king Porus. In other words Alexander did not bothered to establish him self as ruler of India as he did in Persia/Persepolis. I agree with Enric Naval that this is either a not significant title or original research, if we are to make a change in the article we need sources from notable scholars/experts, (an artbook is not relevant with the topic addressed)! Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you people forget this basic fact? THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORARY RECORDS REGARDING ALEXANDER AS REGARDING WHAT HE DID IN HIS LIFETIME. Everything written of him is after a few centuries after his death(is the grammar correct?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.236 (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one surviving letter from Alexander to Aristoteles [2]. I suppose that there are lots of other primary sources that can be used by current historians to extract information from them, and historians like Plutarch must have had even more primary sources available. And, yeah, I know that those books must be full of small incaccuracies, but it's the best that we have. Btw, in your sentence, the first "after" is incorrect and the "is" is left hanging, it should probably say "Everything written of him was written a few centuries after his death" or "All written sources about him were written a few centuries after his death". --Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexander was not a greek king

"... was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC)." Alexander was not a Greek king and this is supported in the ref [4]. If you have the book you can read the sub chapter "Macedonian Society and Kingship". A small cite for those that don't own the book "... in antiquity neither Macedonians nor Greeks considered the Macedonians to be Greek". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bihel (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• This has been discussed a million of times, please read the archives...
• Also, please read carefully the section! It also states at page 373 following the quote you have provided: "An exception was made only for the members of the ruling Argead house, who claimed to be descendants of immigrants from Argos."

Thus, the reference supports the claims. A.Cython (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your personal opinion about Alexander is not of our concern. Comment on the article or don't comment at all. As for your political manipulations -which are of course false and misinterpreted- keep them outside wikipedia, if you please. Greetings --Bucephala (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

All Greek

There are all part of the same family. Ancient Macedonians are descended from southern Greece so makes them Greek. eg. Spartans who call themselfs Spartans are Greek, Athenians calling them Athenians are Greek, Thessaly, Epiros, etc. Hankz1982 (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008.

Minor edit

There is the typo "disacrate" in the section "After India" that I cannot fix because I lack the privileges. Ketang Ketang (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-done (no offense meant). Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much focus on Greek,greekness of Alexander!

I wish to say that this page is not neutral,but it totally greek sides. Alexander from Makedon was not Greek king.!He was Makedonian king.Alexander concored Greece,he did not unify Greece. Alexander was Makedonian king.His Father Philip was also Makedon King,and his mother was not Greeek but Ilirian.Makedonians had their own language,but they did not had any writing language or grammar. It is true that his tutor was Aristotel and Alexander learned scince from him in greek language.But that doesnt make him greek.Alexander concored half of the world and he formed new cities named Alexandria.He did not concore the world like greek king ,he was always Macedonian king.So in the page should be made difference between Alexander of Makedon and his Greek neighbours.Thats what the greeks were!I know that my greek friends don't agree with that but that is fact.The ancient greeks called the macedonians "the barbarians from north",they didn't call them our greek north neighbours.Also the ancient Macedonians were not allowed to play in greek olimpics,because the rule was only greek nations were allowed.Alexander was allowed to join the Greek games for the first time,because he was ruler of Makedon and Greece and they were forced to let him.Book:Alexander the Great-author:Nick McCarty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendreik (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed several times, see Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Alexander_was_not_a_greek_king for the latest thread. Please check this talk page and the archives for discussion about the Greek games thing and the other issues --Enric Naval (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was Alexander I, not III (aka 'the Great'). During his reign, Macedon wasn't the superpower of later times. In any case, I partly agree with you, despite your being a POV-pusher in your own right. But really, just see the past talks that Naval was kind enough to link to... 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a list of recurrent topics to see if we can avoid the same argument being brought again and again --Enric Naval (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

image depicted on chest of Alexander

Can anyone identify the woman depicted on the chest of Alexander in the fresco from Pompei that is used as the lead image for the article? Is it a Gorgon, such as Medusa? I know that Alexander often used images of Athena (and images related to her) on the coins he issued -- did he copy the use of the Gorgon on the chest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it's a gorgoneion. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearchus Map discussion at Alexander the Great

(Moved here for response and discussion if needed)

Hello,

I'd just like to inform you that the current map (not the one you re-inserted) also shows the sea-voyage of Nearchus. Therefore there's no reason to re-insert the map you did. It is well-known that Alexander never went further south than the Egyptian capital of Memphis. The map you inserted is therefore not only redundant, but also inaccurate. Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note -- I do disagree with the removal of the map I re-inserted since I can not find anything I can read that notes the Voyage of Nearchus on the one you insist is adequate. The voyage of Nearchus is listed clearly in the legend of the map I had inserted and I believe that adding a legible entry would be effective in the article. I would have returned to expand the article to include some discussion of the generals and admirals to accompany the map, and would have used the link to Nearchus to lead readers to additional information. The map was intended to lead to discussion of Nearchus and the generals who inherited the expanding empire of Alexander when he died -- that is important when considering the affect Alexander had upon these other cultures.

I am not inclined to edit wars, however, and abandon efforts to make changes (even if I feel I am correct) where I encounter strong proprietary efforts by current editors -- so I just moved on -- I only feel inclined to argue points when there is gross distortion or significant error and, few participating in the edits. Since there are many editors contributing to this article, someday it may take a turn toward more detail about others in the campaigns and the historic legacy.

Upon close examination, I find no error on the map regarding the campaigns in Egypt as I once did and, therefore, do not understand your assertion of an error regarding how far Alexander traveled as a reason for removal of the more legible map. That was not a topic in the caption when you deleted the map. Furthermore, the farthest south that Alexander went on the map I inserted is Siwa, which is labeled, AMMON, the Graecized name of the Egyptian deity Amun, whose major temple was there and which is documented extensively as a place to which Alexander traveled. This is the temple at which he famously said he was welcomed as a "son" of the deity. This is more southerly than Memphis, albeit -- not much.

Your note is much appreciated, however, even if we disagree. -- 83d40m (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)