Jump to content

Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Macedon/ Macedonia

This naming reflect a grievous lack of neutrality on this page.

There has never been Macedon. NEVER under that spelling. For that matter, Macedonia was a kingdom, not polis. To use this name, which is historically inaccurate, reflects strong pro-Greek bias, but not historical truth. Current political conditions CANNOT alter something as clear and factual as a recorded name. There is no dispute here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangeline.a (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @Evangeline.a: "Macedon" is an English language name for Macedonia (ancient kingdom), used to avoid confusion over what political entity that is being discussed. When you changed a link to Macedon in the article to Macedonia, you replaced a correct link to the article about the ancient kingdom with a link pointing to a disambiguation page with links also to modern political entities that have nothing to do with Alexander the Great... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • From my part, no objection to move to "Macedonia" throughout in the article (with the correct link, of course), as indeed "Macedon" is somewhat odd and archaic. However the argument that "Macedon" "reflects strong pro-Greek bias", or that it somehow implies that Macedonia was a polis, not a kingdom (?!?), is complete balderdash. Constantine ✍ 19:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
If there isn't any objection here I'm going to change his name in the lede to Alexander III of Macedonia and the kingdom's name thereafter to Macedonia. It does seem odd to use an archaic form rather than the typical "-ia" suffix form – a suffix which pervades modern English after the language got brought in-line in many ways with Latin and Greek. The "pro-Greek" argument above is weak but it's not surprising since it's quite easy (for those so inclined) to construe the use of "Macedon" as an attempt to disassociate and distance the ancient Kingdom from the modern state.--Tataryn (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Thomas.W: Fine. Hasty link perhaps, but argument stands. "Macedon" is an entirely arbitrary name and English lang. conventions have nothing to do with it. If you point me to, let's see, a text from 50-60yrs ago, or at least before current politicization of the issue, I would consider your position. However, without solid proof this is a revisionist and subversive use of language to alter history. evangeline.a (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Very arbitrary indeed. These pesky Greek revisionists were obviously active all the way back in 1692. Outrageous! Constantine ✍ 23:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Constantine: You are Greek, yes. Not much bias here, eh. Let's see. Of the links you have so graciously added as proof, a bunch have nothing to do with Macedonia, but refer to a town in the US called so. Some refer to a proper name. One speaks of the COUNTRY OF MACEDON(IA), something which all Greeks dispute vehemently, AND it also calls it MACEDONIA AND also says it was populated by Thracians and Illyrians... Should I go on? It is understandable you reeks cling onto glory that isn't yours, especially these days. It is the modus operandi of the Greek state. Sell some olives and fake some history.evangeline.a (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, cherry-picking the minority of sources, followed by ad hominem and blanket attacks on an entire nation. The sure refuge of those with no argument and no facts to back it up. Happy Easter! Constantine ✍ 10:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Evangeline.a:: Sorry to jump into an entirely unfamiliar and a somewhat old conversation, but Evangeline, may I ask you to please take care who you ping? The user you were trying to ping has a signature that is not their username, so you were pinging me instead. --Constantine (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

End of his life

He got a fever in early July. The fever lasted for weeks exposing Alexander to death 13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)13:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.210.111 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

If you could, please add "Lord of Anatolia" as he cut the Gordian knot and was rightfully named "Lord of all Anatolia" Memes are best (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please clarify where in the article you would like this to be placed. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Hi everyone. I'm mostly active on the Italian WP, but from time to time I drop around here and try to make myself useful. Well, I thought I could edit the page by logging in, but sadly it won't let me to. Oh well. I just desired to point out that the map by no means shows the "Hellenistic Kingdoms in 281 BCE" as its caption states; it actually shows the realms of the Successors proper, that is, the immediate successors of Alexander, in 300 BCE. So, the orange one is not Pergamon, , but Lysimachus'. Did Pergamon ever control that land? Hardly.

Now, everyone knows that the 20 years immediately after Alexander left virtually no mark. What happened of Antigonos' vast and composite domain, or of Lysimachus' Bosporus-centered empire? Nothing came of it. On the contrary, Pergamum or Bactria left a much deeper mark on the world. I am sure that the intention was to actually include in the article the map of the later Hellenistic world, but there must have been an oversight.

I digged up on Commons and found out the only map which would fit is this, which sadly is blank and, well, pretty late (200 BCE - you can see the Parthians overrunning the Seleucids). Still, if no one desires to change the map and instead the Successors' ones is retained, someone should at least change its errate caption.

--Piergiovangaetanleonida (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the English Wikipedia. I don't know how protection works on Italian WP but this article is semi-protected so that only established users with certain minimum edit counts on English WP and time since account creation can edit it. It looks like this article was protected due to a pattern of vandalism. I can't seem to find the map you're referring to so I'll leave it for another editor to come by and look into your request. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 Partly done Changed caption to "301 B.C." per the original map source Kingdoms of the Diadochi (Successors) after the battle of Ipsos (301 B.C.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 13:10, June 3, 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2017

Please change "BC/AD" to "BCE/CE" respectively. It is a more inclusive term and is more commonly used in collegiate history departments 128.163.239.236 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: MOS:BCE states either can be used. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

"He is often ranked among the most influential people in human history." : redundant, if whimsical 81.129.163.32 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Done – Nihlus (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality

Doesn't mention anywhere that Alexander the Great was gay, by today's standards. (posted by user:81.157.151.139)'

see relevant section:Alexander the Great#Personal relationships IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Most scholars that I know of generally consider it anachronistic to describe a historical figure from classical antiquity as either "homosexual" or "heterosexual" since these are terms that did not exist back then. In any case, the article already describes the relationship between Alexander and his bodyguard Hephaestion, which may or may not have been homoerotic. It also mentions the fact that Alexander was certainly not completely homosexual; ancient sources record a great deal about his immense infatuation with his wife Roxana. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup opening sentence

Some of the parenthetical text in the opening sentence could be inserted as a footnote instead. I'd imagine the spelling of his name in Greek characters and the pronunciation of it are of interest to a very small percentage of readers. Rather, it does little more than disrupt the flow of reading. See how it's done on Christopher Columbus and Charlemagne. Lizard (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: caption of picture

The caption of the first picture says ""Darius III of Persia", Alexander Mosaic, Naples National Archaeological Museum", however, it shows Alexander, not Darius. The correct text would be: "Alexander III of Macedon", Alexander Mosaic, Naples National Archaeological Museum" Or alternatively: "Alexander the Great", Alexander Mosaic, Naples National Archaeological Museum" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.187.217 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In wikitext, it says, "Alexander fighting king Darius III of Persia," but, for some reason I cannot explain, the text that shows up on the screen outside of edit mode just says "Darius III of Persia." I have no idea what the error is or how to fix it. Does anyone else know how to fix it? --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Another user just fixed the problem by simply removing the template altogether. I have restored some essential background information about the mosaic to the caption. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request On April 2, 2018

71.191.182.235 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Alexander did not invade India

Alexander never invaded India, Taxila king Ambhi gave up but purushottam/Porus fought against Alexander. He was hit by the Jevlin of king Purushottam. Though he was not dead, but the army backed off. Komalpaw (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How do we know that Alex lived? was historical?

The proposal that Alexander the Great never really existed is absurd, defies a massive dearth of evidence to the contrary, and is not supported by any reputable historians. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

How do we know that Alex the great is not a myth or legend? Arrian supposely lived centuries after 333 BC. And is not the oldest Arrian manuscript from the 12th century AD? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC))

This cannot seriously be a real question. There is an overwhelming quantity of evidence in favor of Alexander the Great's historicity. Indeed, there is far more evidence for his historical existence than virtually any other historical figure from antiquity. There are dozens of pieces of physical evidence. For one thing, we have this temple dedication with his name inscribed on it from the temple to Athena Polias that he dedicated at Priene:
Dedication of Alexander the Great to Athena Polias at Priene, now housed in the British Museum
Alexander the Great's corpse was also displayed in a Mausoleum in Alexandria for hundreds of years and is mentioned by countless writers who saw it, including none other than Julius Caesar. It has since been lost, however, having mysteriously vanished around the time Christians became the majority in Egypt.
We also have dozens of accounts of his life written by reliable historians based on records made by people who actually knew him and travelled with him. Most contemporary descriptions of him have been lost, but a few fragments have been preserved through quotations.
There is also the overwhelming political evidence; he conquered almost the entire known world and founded dozens of cities named after him, including Alexandria and Kandahar. The entire Hellenistic period was a result of his conquests. If we were to reject the historicity of Alexander the Great, we would also have the reject the historicity of every single person who ever lived until at least the late 1800s. Indeed, it would be such an absurd and radical decision that it would require us to seriously question the existence of major political figures who are currently alive, such as Barack Obama or Donald Trump. It would be like asking, "How can you say someone exists if you have never met the person yourself?" --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Kat, but can't we just close this as WP:FORUM? The original post obviously has nothing to do with article improvement. Dr. K. 20:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The editor is not just ruminating, see these edits. Paul August ☎ 00:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I should note that the evidence I have listed above is by no means comprehensive; it is just what I could think of off the top of my head. There are mountains of more evidence for Alexander the Great's historical existence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2018 (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.

Alexander's campaign did not result in Greco-Buddhism. The claim in the article is false.

Even though Alexanders campaign into Gandhara brought Hellenistic culture along with him, Buddhism was not yet prevalent outside of the Gangatic Plain. Only after the Mauryan Empire conquered the Greek provinces, the third Emperor Ashoka converted the dominion to Buddhism. This is evident in the inscriptions in the Edicts of Ashoka. Vajra Raja (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Help request

Please can someone add the Macedonian language to the introduction here is the Macedonian Alphabet for Alexander the Great Александар Велики meaning Alexander the Great. He was an ethnic Macedonian and in Republic of Macedonia he is known as Александар Велики — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.154.138 (talk • contribs)

  •  Not done The Macedonian language is totally irrelevant for the article, since neither the Macedonian language nor the present day country of Macedonia have anything whatsoever to do with Alexander the Great and the ancient kingdom of Macedon/Macedonia. The ancient kingdom wasn't centered around the area of the modern day country, and the people who now live there moved to the area long after Alexander the Great's time, meaning that today's "ethnic Macedonians" are not the same people as the Macedonians of Alexander the Great's time... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Working in the spanish article and others.
Own work. But is yours. Use it free. Regards. Διεγο Απόλλων Άρης (Alejandro) (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Alexander The Great campaign: Jonia 336 BC
    Alexander The Great campaign: Jonia 336 BC
  • Alexander The Great campaign: Media and Egypt 333 BC
    Alexander The Great campaign: Media and Egypt 333 BC
  • Alexander The Great campaign: Persia 331 BC
    Alexander The Great campaign: Persia 331 BC
  • Alexander The Great campaign: India 326 BC
    Alexander The Great campaign: India 326 BC

Great. Perhaps you have to put also "Grecia" for the whole complex from Crete until Macedonia.

Alexander defeated by porus.

In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander's cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indus traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.85.46 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

So why it is written that Alexander defeated Poras and gave his land back to him, Alexander was out to win the world and after winning the more than half world no one would go back this is big misconception that Alexander won the war all should know the truth I think the truth should be written in the Wikipedia for right information to all. Hauadaua (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, your request here is so poorly written I can barely understand it. I highly recommend that you try using something called punctuation. Second of all, all information on Wikipedia is supposed to be cited to a reliable source. Unless you can provide a source saying that what you are arguing is true, your claims are original research. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Second of all, should the entire article be deleted as not based on reliable sources? Does any secondary source cite 2 contempory reliable primary sources? The supposed writer Arrian supposedly lived centuries after 333 BC. Moreover, the oldest manuscript of Arrian has been dated to 12th century AD for crying outloud! How about renaming the article "Late Legends of Alexander the Great about whom no reliable witnesses exist"? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC))

The actual fact is Porus defeated Alexander.... The massive harm given by Porus to Alexander's army.. .Even Alexander was injured in the battle so he took decision to get back to Macedonia and while returning he could not baee the pain given by Porus and died on the way.... If he would have won the battlefield against the Porus he would have not return back Pravin2989 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pravin2989: You are writing historical fiction here. Here at Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources, so unless you have a reliable, academic source written by a real scholar that says all the nonsense you have just spouted, this discussion is over. You are welcome to try to publish your own revisionist history elsewhere, but we will not give you a platform to do it here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Greek's history on Alexander is clear attempt to eulogize their leader / clans. The facts and logical conclusions have no place in their (Greek/ European) history versions. An Indian version is worth to be considered also.[1] 223.230.78.214 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alexander vs Porus: Beyond the fog of war". Retrieved 29 June 2018.

Strategos Autokrator of Greece

His father, Philip, was king of Macedon and became strategos - autokrator of Greece against Persia. After his death the place was taken by Alexander.So, is it possible to put this office in Philip's and Alexander's infoboxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B41F:6800:64C0:25C5:4C7C:AB0E (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It is already in the infobox: "Hegemon of Hellenic League". Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but it has to be also, in my opinion, "Strategos Autokrator of Greece" which is more accurate to the ancient Greek texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:B41F:6800:64C0:25C5:4C7C:AB0E (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

s.th must be done about this.

It is ridiculous! every body knows that he has attacked to other territories. Why the writers avoided to write the truth? all verbs have changed in a way to show him as a courageous commander, a myth! He is not though! Aran.zahra (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Completely incomprehensible. Sorry. 50.111.4.123 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Improving how history is represented to avoid further cognitive bias

This is the first time i am posting regarding this matter on wikipedia, i believe it is something that should be discussed and agreed upon.

Background.


This is on how to carefully use the words in documents representing history so that it promotes the awareness of human bias and inability to project into history just because of how the memory references work. for an example when someone speaks of a modern day political boundary in a sentence relating to an event prior to the political boundary the cognition by default brings all the concepts and references attached to the modern day political boundary when studying history, there are plenty of mistakes on this matter that has been made, and i am trying to promote the awareness. Alexander and his followers/2nd Generation of himself in my opinion was trying to extend the currency system they prematurely had to invent because they did not have everything their advancements required. Hence his attempts were to capture more users of the currency and cheap labour. Attempting to do so he is responsible for breaking down parts of Kalinga, even the books doesn't say directly the signs are pretty clear. But that's just my opinion.

The detail that requires attention is how he is represented in the document. "The Great" is not how a Kalinga Native would like to have him described as. So I would like to request some attempt to either 1. remove Bias additions to names when there is destruction. He maybe great for Greeks, just like Genghis Khan was to the Mongols and Nazi leader to his followers.

Thank you.

Personally i would call him Alexander the Barbarian, (nth documented Terrorist) or fair to everyone Alexander or two titles to be fair for both view points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pituwalk (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alas, calling him Alexander "the Barbarian" would go against those unbiased principles you are advocating for. His epithet "the Great" refers to his achievements as a person, which are undoubtedly of magnitude, and not necessarily for any 'terrible' things he has done, which would noted in the wiki page. As his perceived shortcomings are listed along with his achievements, I fail to see how the article could be considered biased. As for the name, as I said before, refers to his military achievements primarily, for which he is most well known. The wiki naming conventions for article names state that they should be the name most well known by others. Alexander "the Great" definitely fits this. Spykryo (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

In the first paragraph, "(Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, translit. Aléxandros ho Mégas" should become "(Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας, translit. Aléxandros ho Mégas)" - it's missing a closing bracket. 121.75.124.27 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Demetrius I of Bactria

Demetrius I of Bactria did not conquer modern day India as linked on the article. Please provide one reference that mentions areas of modern day India. He conquered the Indus Valley as provided by the reference. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

"India" here is a historiographic term. This usage is very common in the literature. It doesn't mean the modern country of India in the literal sense. Khirurg (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The link is clearly pointed to modern day India. The references also mention it to be Indus Valley. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
Then you can remove the link. There is no need for it anyway. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It is by no way factually correct. He did not conquer India, his domain is in the Indus Valley. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
It seems you do not grasp the concept of historical usage. If you cannot comprehend this, I have nothing more to say to you. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
What matters is: Indus Valley is the most accurate for new reader. Wikipedia is to help new and experience reader understand the subject. Not just experienced readers. As such, Indus Valley supports both experienced and new. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
In antiquity, "India" meant "the land of the Indus". Thus, conquering the Indus valley was conquering India. Other parts of what is now India were not called "India", but had their own names, e.g. Gangiridai. If you do not know such things, it might be best if you don't edit these articles. As much as some things may bother you, you cannot change history. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Provide reference before stating such non-sense. Again, as mentioned, new reader need to be kept in mind. Indus Valley supports booth new and experienced readers. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
A source that "India" meant "Land of the Indus"? Are you serious? That's the simplest thing in the world [1]. Khirurg (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
What is wrong with Indus Valley? How is it inaccurate? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
Ok, this time, we are in WP:IDHT territory. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This is going in circles. Best thing might be is to put it to RFC. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC))
Sure. You'll lose. See below. Khirurg (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
One of these references states: "who conquered India". Seriously? Can we take this reference for example seriously? Demetrius conquered a part of the Indus Valley (not sure if he conquered the whole Indus Valley as the Greeks were infighting), and he becomes "who conquered India" for this reference? This is an example of a reference that seems Eurocentric in my view. You believe he "conquered India"? Or even "all of the Indus valley"? That also seems improbable. Regardless, I am taking a break, will request RFC in a few weeks after I research more and have better understanding of wiki policies. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

Interesting discussion here.

Highpeaks35, You would benefit from reading Names for India#India and India (Herodotus).

Khirurg, do you think "India" in Alexander's time didn't include Gangaridai? Can you provide a source for that? The idea that "India" meant the "land of Indus" is not well-known. Most sources characterise it as "land beyond Indus", which is unfortunate. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

off-topic
Yes, I am very interested as well regarding the requested sources. Khirurg loves throwing insults and personal attack, calling me "Hindu-nationalist" (and I am not even Hindu). As such, please Khirurg, provide the source Kautilya3 requested. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
I think Khirurg is a perfectly fine editor. Neither do I see where he called you a "Hindu-nationalist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, here is where he called me a Hindu-nationalist because I opposed modern day India being linked to Demetrius conquest in the trans-Indus river area. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
Kautilya3 Furthermore, my work was called a "Hindu garbage" by another editor, and the user was defending it. By calling me dishonest. Where the diff clearly mentions, Fowler&fowler saying "Hindu garbage" in the 4th sentence. Khirurg deflected, by stating Fowler stating "Unmitigated garbage" on the first sentence, clearly Fowler used "Hindu garbage" in the 4th sentence. What a dishonest individual Khirurg is. This is why I don't trust this user, he defends racist behavior. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC))
He said you were pushing "Hindu-nationalist POV", which is not the same thing as calling you a "Hindu-nationalist". There is an important difference. (The former is acceptable on Wikipedia, whereas the latter is not.) If he concluded from your discussion above that it was "Hindu-nationalist POV", I would say it was a reasonable supposition. The fact is that you haven't done you homework before badgering him for sources. There are literally hundreds of sources for Alexander's "Indian campaign". Even this page has a section on it, and points to the full page on the topic as well.
Fowler has apologised for his remarks and withdrew them. So you should drop the issue henceforth.
Finally, the article talk pages are meant for subject discussion. You need to take up conduct issues separately on their user talk pages. Accordingly, I am going to collapse this exchange as being off-topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Khirurg: I found a source that contradicts your assertion that India didn't include Gangaridai:

"Accordingly, having inquired of Phegeus what he needed to know, he learned that beyond the river there was a journey of 12 days through desert wastes and that then they came to the Ganges, the greatest river of all India, and that on its farther bank dwelt the races called Gangaridae and Prasii; that their king was Aggrammes and that he was blocking the roads with 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry".[1]

We don't know who "Gangaridae" are, but "Prasii" refers to Sanskrit Prachya ("the East"), where Pataliputra was. In any case, Ganges was included in Alexander's "India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eggermont, Pierre Herman Leonard (1975), Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia, Peeters Publishers, pp. 13–14, ISBN 978-90-6186-037-2
That doesn't change anything though. The issue here is whether we can use "India" to describe Alexander's conquests. The article states "from Greece to northwestern India". The sourcing for that is very strong, as you can see above. Khirurg (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not contesting that. I asked a separate question about what "India" meant in Alexander's time. But now I have answered it myself. So nothing more to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Exile and return

@Thomas.W: I found this

Alexander fled Macedon with his mother ... where he sought refuge with the Illyrian king.

That king was Glaucias of Taulantii in 337 BC according to this source: A History of Macedonia: Volume III: 336-167 B.C. By N. G. L. Hammond, F. W. Walbank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.92.134.188 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian Name

It would be fair to add his name in the Macedonian dialect of Greek, Aléxandras. 31.32.231.147 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexander the Great is NOT Dhul-Qarnayn

OzH349 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Dhul-Qarnayn is mentioned the Quran in Surah 18 and the Quran explicitly states that he believed in one God, which is not true for the Ancient Greeks. Dhul-Qarnayn is also knows as "Sikandar Dhul-Qarnayn" and many believe that Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great of Persia. It is quite clear from the Quran that Dhul-Qarnayn built a wall to protect against Gog and Magog, and Alexander the Great built no such wall. Additionally, Dhul-Qarnayn literally means "two-horned" and Cyrus the Great is depicted as having a crown with two horns. Alexander the Great's life is quite well documented so it leaves no question that he is not Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Quran.

The name Sikandar in Persian/Arabic translates to Alexander in English is the source of most of this confusion. It is a common mistake as the name "Sikandar" means "ruler" and is often used as a title for a great ruler. Since Alexander the Great was a great ruler, he is called Sikandar-e-azam by Persian/Urdu speakers. The use of the name "Sikandar" is similar to how the word "Caeser" has been used. It became a title during the Roman empire and after the Roman empire's collapse it was used as a title by Byzantian rulers. The use of the word Kaiser has the same root.

The Caspian Gates in Derbent, often identified with the Gates of Alexander are again translated from the gates of "Sikandar" referring to Dhul-Qarnayn, not Alexander the Great.

This is presented as a fact in many places in Wikipedia and they should all be corrected. I will be happy to help.OzH349 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

[1]

@OzH349: The text of this article says Dhul-Qarnayn is "believed by some scholars to represent Alexander", and it is certainly true that some scholars believe that. Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Quran does not match the documented career of Alexander, but many scholars argue that the figure in the Quran is based on legends about Alexander that circulated in the Mediterranean and Middle East. Muslims find this argument objectionable because it implies that the Quran contains an error, and other possible sources of the story have been advanced, including Cyrus, as you can see at the article on Dhul-Qarnayn. But that's not really relevant in this article. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the opinions of reliable, scholarly sources. When there is significant disagreement among those sources, Wikipedia has to reflect the major points of view without treating one position or another as certain. This article's statement about Dhul-Qarnayn does exactly that, so I don't see that it needs to be changed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
That Dhul Qarnayn is derived from the legendary (not the historical) Alexander is the consensus among scholars. See the article Dhul Qarnayn for sources.PiCo (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You can find Quranic stories of Dhul-Qarnayn in Alexander section of the Shahnameh too. Dhul-Qarnayn is clearly Alexander the Great. Aryzad (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/general-islamic-topics/48012-zulqarnain-as-cyrus-the-great-within-the-noble-quran

Place of birth specification

Please add the following in Line 3, so people do not confuse Macedonia with the country "North Macedonia": "...He was born in Pella (Macedonia)..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einserschüler (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Arrian on the physical appearance of Alexander the Great

Although the article allegedly quotes Arrian, there seems to be no solid evidence to my experience that he actually stated anything about heterochromia. Checking the sources cited, neither give a proper explanation of the location of this quote within Arrian's corpus. I would strongly recommend amending this article unless the actual quote can be found in Arrian's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4601:9E43:CC9B:1650:F70D:6DB1 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Accursed"

@HistoryofIran:, He is called the Great because he conquered the empire of the people whom call him the Accursed. Stop reverting. Aryzad (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

See my edit summary. If you want to expand about cute pejorative nicknames about him, please do it here [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, this is very easy. "The Great" is one side of the story, and "the Accursed" is the other side. Being his nickname in the west, doesn't make "the Great" more important. This is as important as "commonly known as Alexander the Great [in the west]", so the lead is where it should be. Can you explain why "we don't put pejorative nicknames in the lead"? There is no Parthian source about him. Aryzad (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And that "commonly known as Alexander the Great" should be changed to "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west" Aryzad (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No, because he is not commonly known as the "the Accursed". He is however, commonly known as "the Great." Him being mentioned as "the Accursed" in some Sasanian-Zoroastrian sources doesn't mean he was known by that by every Iranian/Zoroastrian. He wasn't viewed negatively in Parthian/Eastern Iranian oral story. In fact, overall he is seen more positively in Iranian history than negatively. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with the above. This is an attempt at pushing fringe Sasanian-Zoroastrian POV, which is among the most bizarre things I have ever seen. Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both HistoryofIran and Khirurg. Dr. K. 22:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, if we shall put it simple, then when it comes to weighing possible contents of articles to each other then we generally let the article reflect, what is commonly accepted or considered as being important as to the subject in question. This at least applies for the language English, wich is the issue here.
A quick "Google-survey" of some of the topics or expressions debated shows a rather unanimous support for "Alexander the Great" as the commonly accepted expression when it comes to "Alexander of Macedonia":
"commonly known as Alexander the Great": Ca. 35.600 results
"commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west": No results found for "commonly known as Alexander the Great in the west".
"Alexander the Great": Ca. 17.400.000 results
"Alexander of Macedonia": Ca. 107.000 results
"Alexander the Accursed": Ca. 41.600 results
And just for the sake of clarification; it's not merely in "the West", that he is called Alexander the Great in various languages in "the East" (cetral and eastern parts of Asia) he is called something quiet similar as the expression in the "West":
Vietnamese: Alexandros Đại đế = Alexander the Great
Bahasa Indonesia: Aleksander Agung = Alexander the Great
Burmese: မဟာအလက်ဇန္ဒား = Alexander the Great
Nepali: अलेक्जेन्डर द ग्रेट = Alexander the Great
Punjabi: ਸਿਕੰਦਰ ਮਹਾਨ = Alexander the Great
Thai: อเล็กซานเดอร์มหาราช = Alexander the Great
Tagalog: Alejandro ang Dakila = Alexander the Great Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad: King Alexandros III of Makedonia is commonly known in English as "Alexander the Great"; he is virtually never referred to as "Alexander the Accursed"—or at least not in English. Regardless of whether you think he should be called "Alexander the Accursed," the fact remains that he is almost never called this, so we have no justification to call him this in the first paragraph of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for you to right great wrongs. If you think Alexander the Great should be more commonly known as "Alexander the Accursed," you are welcome to write your own book or article advocating in favor of people calling him this. If you can provide citations to reliable, modern, scholarly sources explicitly stating that Alexander the Great is mentioned in Persian sources as "Alexander the Accursed," then you are even welcome to mention the nickname "Alexander the Accursed" in one of the later sections in the body of the article where it makes sense to mention it in context, but we have no justifiable reason to mention an obscure Sassanian nickname for Alexander the Great in the first paragraph of the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: @Khirurg: @Oleryhlolsson: I think you guys don't know what is the point. I've never said he is commonly as "Alexander the Accursed". I've said he is known in the Zoroastrian and ancient Iranian sources as "Alexander the Accursed". The point is that he is known as "the Great" because he conquered an Iranian empire, but this is one side of the story. People of that empire called him "Alexander the Accursed", and this is the other side of the story. And there is no reason that makes his name in the texts of the winner side more important than his name in the texts of the loser side. Aryzad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Aryzad, here are my concerns on your edit.[3] a)First of all, you do not go straight to the introduction to add sourced material. Nope. The intro should summarize the main body of the article. So, if you would like something to be inserted to the article, just add it to the main body, wait for some period to stabilize and then, if it is important, add a quick comment on the intro. That is a general rule. Have a look at this guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. b)In case you would like to add something in the main body, it has to be sourced and neutral. Have a look here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. c) My final comment is that if you would like to add the view of the persians (or others), I would suggest you look into the Alexander's literature (scholarly articles or books) and find the appropriate material. It would be much more interesting to add some words about it without adjectives having a pivotal role. Cinadon36 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Cinadon36: 1) It is already explained in the article. In Alexander_the_Great#In_ancient_and_modern_culture 2) I used the academic sources, there academic sources in fact. And it is neutral. I didn't said he is an evil man. I said he is known as Alexander the Accursed in some sources. It is definitely more neutral than saying "He is commonly known as Alexander the Great"; While he is known that way only in the west.
Anyway, I don't want to add it to the article anymore, since there are so many people against it. Aryzad (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As I explained in my previous comment, it's not merely in "the West" that the expression "the Great" is used. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2019

Under Section Persia - following the sentance "Possible causes include a drunken accident or deliberate revenge for the burning of the Acropolis of Athens during the Second Persian War by Xerxes". Add that "A servant named Thais was the inistigator of buring of Perspolis according to historians Diodorus Siculus ((90-21 BCE)and Quintus Curtius Rufus (41-54 CE)."

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Source: Alexander the Great & the Burning of Perspolis, Joshua J. Mark, Ancient History Encyclopedia, February 2011 Xpen2000 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

Edit 1: Repipe "Punjab" to Punjab, not to Punjab region.

Reasons for edit 1: Alexander only held "West Punjab" (Pakistani Punjab), not the whole "Punjab region".

Details of edit 1: Punjab has been presently piped to the Punjab region. The sourced text in the article says his territories where only up to Beas river. Which means Alexander had conquered only less than 20% to 25% of the Punjab region. Punjab region is currently divided into 3 parts, namely West Punjab state in Pakistan, East Punjab state in India, and Haryana state in India. Alexander at max had West Punjab (Pakistani Punjab) with perhaps Pathankot and Amritsar included in it. Please pipe Punjab to Punjab ("Punjab, Pakistan") and not the "Punjab region" namespace.


Edit 2: Please replace the "unsourced" third paragraph of the lede with the following sourced text.

Alexander aimed to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea" and invaded India in 326 BC, winning an important victory over the Pauravas at the Battle of the Hydaspes whom he barely managed to defeat with the help of resources of another native Indian king Amba. Beyond Hydaspes the prospect of facing much larger and more power native Indian kingdoms terrified his army into mutiny, his biographer recorded his general making an excuse of his soldiers being homesick. Faced with the "fiercely violent" mutiny of his troops fearful of the campaigns against the larger Indian kingdoms, he eventually turned back and sustained an injury from the Indians, soon after dying in Babylon in 323 BC, the city that he planned to establish as his capital, without executing a series of planned campaigns that would have begun with an invasion of Arabia. In the years following his death, a series of civil wars tore his empire apart, resulting in the establishment of several states ruled by the Diadochi: Alexander's surviving generals and heirs.[1][2][3]

Reasons for edit 2: remove the western-centric unsourced POV bias from the lede.

Details of edit 2:

2.1. Unsourced lede: This part of the lede is presently not sourced. Rest of the lede is largely sourced. The part which shows "Alexander the Great" was in fact not great but "Alexander the Coward" who turned his back when faced with the real challenge, remains unsourced. Till he turned his back from India, he had been bullying smaller tribes, weakening enemy kingdoms by buying out their key generals/enemies before waging wars (against Iranians), gaining power by buying out smaller kingdoms i.e. he took nothing but gave lot to the native Indian king Ambi so that he can enlist his help against Porus, eventually even buying Porus out because it is one thing to win by hook or crook but it is much harder to hold on to the territory when faced with the hostile natives. His campaigns were touch-and-go visits, not gaining anything in terms of hefty annual tributes, etc. He lost these territories soon after her turned back, including to natives and other Indianised converted/Hindu-Buddhist Indo-Greek hybrid kings who were less Greek and more Indians in terms of culture/religion, religion is the last things people give up in such wars.

2.2. Lede not in tune with the article text: It does not capture the essence of the sourced text inside the article. Please read the relevant Revolt of the army section in this article. The lede must capture the essence of this section.

2.3. Western centric bias and/or fanboy apologist type style of cover up phrasing: Comes across as a fanboy attempt to glorify/covering up his fears of the larger Indian armies across Beas river. Reality is, existing sources in this articles make it clear that his armies were already exhausted by the medium sized armies of native Indian king, Porus, whom they barely defeated with the help of another native Indian king Amba, and Alex's army had no flight left in them to face the several times larger Indian armies of the bigger native Indian kingdoms to the east of Beas river. Lede should make it clear. Tt was cowardice/fear and mutiny of his own fearful army that made him turn back, not just homesickness which as dished out as an excuse by his paid biographer. Give the credit where it is due, in this case, to the Indians including those who were instrumental in enabling his touch-and-go successes (Amba and Porus, they gave him nothing, received lot more from him in return for whatever help Alexander got from them). That is what the existing sourced content seems to say in this article. Please remove the western-centric POV bias from the lede. Thank you. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kosmin 2014, p. 34.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference PA62 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Tripathi 1999, pp. 137–38.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is largely nationalistic alternative historiography masquerading as a neutral edit request. To the extend that there are any sources at all for the suggestions, they are impossible to verify given the poor state of citing. Please refer to the Core Content Policies and create a separate discussion here where interested editors can reach consensus on the validity of these suggestions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Alexander the Great is NOT Dhul-Qarnayn

I request editing the below text in the paragraph that follows. It is only good practice to mention the complete picture.

Original The figure of Dhul-Qarnayn (literally "the Two-Horned One") mentioned in the Quran is believed by scholars to be based on later legends of Alexander.[260] In this tradition, he was a heroic figure who built a wall to defend against the nations of Gog and Magog.[262] He then travelled the known world in search of the Water of Life and Immortality, eventually becoming a prophet.[262]

Revised The figure of Dhul-Qarnayn (literally "the Two-Horned One") mentioned in the Quran is believed by some scholars to be based on later legends of Alexander.[260] This view is not based on any conclusive evidence and is heavily disputed by other scholars. In this tradition, he was a heroic figure who built a wall to defend against the nations of Gog and Magog.[262] He then travelled the known world in search of the Water of Life and Immortality, eventually becoming a prophet.[262] — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzH349 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Alexander the Great being blonde

I included this source. Historian and Egyptologist Joann Fletcher asserts that the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great and members of the Macedonian-Greek Ptolemaic dynasty of Hellenistic Egypt had blond hair, such as Arsinoe II and Berenice II.[1] TelephoneBaby (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 March 2020

Sorry, but that's WP:SYNTH and POV. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fletcher 2008, pp. 87, 246–247, see image plates and captions.

Physical appearance Etc total guess work

Descriptions of his physical appearance by people born 200 years after he died? Want me to have a baseless guess as well?--OneLowDat (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It is debatable as to whether the Macedonians were actually "Greeks". The Achaeans and Dorians invaded mainland Greece during the period in which Cretan and Mycenean societies collapsed. The local people eventually intermixed with the invaders and created the Hellenes who occupied "classical" Greece. Macedonia (as well as Thessaly and Thrace) were not part of these cultures and were not part of the resultant "classical" Greek ethnic, cultural or social system. Exposure through trade and war, especially as mercenaries, carried Greek culture back into these areas, but they retained political, social and cultural traits distinct from the "classical" Greek city-states, such as Sparta, Athens, Corinth or even Thebes. In Homer, the people of these areas were not included as among the "Greeks" that rallied to Agamemnon's call for vengeance on Troy. In the time of "classical" Greece, these peoples were essentially considered as "barbarians" despite their adoption of Greek dialects and social and cultural norms. Even during the Roman-Macedonian wars, the Romans never considered the Macedonians as part of the central Greek core. Like the later Hellenized areas of Asia, they were not considered to be Greeks, only the descendants of Greek colonists living in sister city-states inheriting that social and cultural status. The claim that Macedonia was part of Greece and that Alexander the Great was a "Greek" are an invention of later Greek nationalists seeking to justify their desire for a "Greater Greece" including most of the Adriatic coast, Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, several locations around the Black Sea and, especially, eastern Anatolia, the Asia Minor of "classical" Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.35.4.219 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about other Macedonians but Alexander belonged to the Argean dynasty from Argos the heart of Greece. Epi Sedinem (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources

I suggest more primary sources be used when sourcing basic facts of his life, rather than referring to modern books, which is a loss of information. Modern books should be sources only when they bring additional analyses or interpretations. 12:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehekan (talk • contribs)

That probably isn't appropriate per WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY. (Hohum @) 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 June 2020

Questions of accuracy to claim: "He {Alexander} was undefeated in battle...".

The article can be improved by including countering evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Define battle: struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something.

Whilst it may be true that Alexander did not lose any wars, it is questionable at the least to claim he was undefeated in battle.The first casualty of war is the truth

Contradictory to other wiki pages - questions of accuracy to claim: Underlined reference link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanders_who_never_lost_a_battle) points to a wiki page with multiple issues, including disputes about factual accuracy. -- Historian Green wrote, "Alexander could not admit even a temporary defeat." Green devotes an entire appendix in support of his interpretation, taking the view that for political reasons, Alexander could not admit even a temporary defeat. Thus, the initial defeat was covered up by his propagandists by a very heroic (and Homeric) charge into the now well-deployed enemy. In his preface to the 2012 reprint, Green states: "on the evidence as it stands that theory remains untenable and the contradiction inexplicable."[12] source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Granicus -- Campaign in Bactria It is well known that the Macedonian forces received much hardship whilst fighting in Bactria because of fierce guerrilla warfare. Could it be that Alexander couldn't find victory militarily and so he had to resort to a political alliance which is why he took Princess Roxana as his first wife? -- Alexander conquered Sogdiana. In the south, beyond the Oxus, he met strong resistance. After two years of war and a strong insurgency campaign, Alexander managed to establish little control over Bactria. source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria This would indicate that not all battles were won by Alexander. The first casualty of war is the truth. -- Battle of Hydaspes There are claims that Alexander met his limits in conquest with the Kingdom of Paurava. There are speculations that the Macedonians were defeated at the Battle of Hydaspes and had to retreat or that they were defeated after the battle by another Indian army or had to retreat because they couldn't fight again with another Indian army preparing to face them.

There are no Indian accounts of the Battle of the Hydaspes River. It is difficult to prove a negative, but since there is very little historical material from that era (326 BCE) at all, we can be reasonably certain that there are no historical accounts. Tarn (1966) discusses this when talking about the Bactrian Greeks. -- After taking Byblos (modern Jubayl) and Sidon (Arabic Ṣaydā), he met with a check at Tyre, where he was refused entry into the island city. He thereupon prepared to use all methods of siegecraft to take it, but the Tyrians resisted, holding out for seven months. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great The fact the siege spanned seven months is clear evidence this was NOT a decisive win, rather a protracted battle with Tryians who resisted the battle and made wins on the days of battle to resist being taken. -- No evidence supporting either Alexander was or was not undefeated in battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gates Very limited information to support any claim of being undefeated in battle. --

It is axiomatic that there is considerable evidence to counter the claim Alexander was undefeated in battle.

IntegritasQuodCritica (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @IntegritasQuodCritica: You are doing what is called original research and that is not an acceptable way of proceeding. Neither is Wikipedia a reliable source. The source given in the article for "Alexander was undefeated" is :
  • Yenne, Bill (2010). Alexander the Great: Lessons from History's Undefeated General. New York City: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-230-61915-9.

Which seems quite acceptable. The Britannica page has no mention that Alexander was defeated, or of the opposite for the record. Your opinion that a seven months siege is not a "win" is not particularly accurate or convincing, either, since sieges were, indeed, typically long and protracted affairs; and 7 months is quite rapid, for example have you heard of Candia (21 years!), Drepana (8 years) or Carthage (2 to 3 years)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 June 2020

To advance the truth on the debate:

One of the factors that typically distinguishes a war from a battle is the length of time that they last. A battle MAY LAST FOR A SHORT PERIOD and involve a small number of forces which would result in not having a clear result. In such a case the battle is referred to as a skirmish. Refer to: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-differences-between-a-battle-and-a-war.html

Battle, defined as - "A GENERAL ENCOUNTER between armies, ships of war, or aircraft". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/battle

Peter Green, respected historian wrote in his 1974 book Alexander of Macedon, page 90, "Alexander could not admit even a temporary defeat. Thus, the initial defeat was covered up by his propagandists by a very heroic (and Homeric) charge into the now well-deployed enemy. Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Granicus#cite_note-12

It is also vital to include non-anglo historic accounts - the other side of history. The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies states, represents the Persian view on history, stating: In the meanwhile Alexander split his army and led his 10,000 plus strong force towards the Persepolis through the Persian Gate (Darband-e Pars), possibly located in northeast of today's Yasuj, the capital of modern 'Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad' Province province, in southwestern Iran. The exact location however remains unknown. There, Ariobarzan with his regiment of no more than 700 horsemen, possibly members of the Achaemenid elite force, known as 'the immortals' held off the aggressors for over 30 days. During the period, he and his soldiers bravely ambushed Alexander's overwhelming army, inflicted heavy casualties and caused loss of entire platoons of mercenaries. Alexander was forced to escape to save his life. The General’s success at the Battle of the Persian Gate however, was short lived as the result of a betrayal.

Alexander is reported in several authoritative texts and sources as retreating from the Persian Gates after the initial defeat.

For more evidence, John R. Mixter, wrote, "Of the four great battles Alexander fought in the course of his brilliant military career, the Battle of the Granicus, fought in May 334 BC, was the first–and the one in which he came closest to failure and death." Arrian, a 2nd-century Greek historian whose account of the battle is the most comprehensive and reliable, described the hard-fought cavalry action that ensued in the river and on its bank: ‘At the point where the vanguard under Amyntas and Socrates touched the bank, the Persians shot volleys on them from above, some hurling their javelins into the river from their commanding position on the bank, others going down to the stream on the more level ground. There was a great shoving by the cavalry, as some were trying to get out of the river, others to stop them, great showers of Persian javelins, much thrusting of Macedonian spears. But the Macedonians, much outnumbered, came off badly in the first onslaught; they were defending themselves from the river on ground that was not firm and was beneath the enemy’s while the Persians had the advantage of the bank; in particular, the flower of the Persian cavalry was posted here, and Memnon’s sons and Memnon himself ventured their lives with them. The first Macedonians who came to grips with the Persians were cut down, despite their valor.’ Source: https://www.historynet.com/wars-of-alexander-the-great-battle-of-the-granicus.htm#:~:text=Of%20the%20four%20great%20battles,closest%20to%20failure%20and%20death.

William Mclaughlin, wrote The Persian Thermopylae: When Alexander The Great Nearly Lost His Empire In Battle. Alexander was forced to call a retreat and most shamefully, he gave orders to leave the Macedonian dead. Funeral rights were of huge importance to the Macedonians and so was being able to go back for their dead. The loss of life was substantial for the Macedonians with whole units lost in the engagement. Alexander regrouped his army in camp on an open plain after suffering perhaps his single greatest losses of any day of his Persian campaign thus far, possibly even more than at Gaugamela, though the sources are unspecific. Source: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/persian-thermopylae-alexander-great-nearly-lost-empire-battle-m.html

The wiki line proposed for change reads: He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders.[3] The question is the inaccuracy of the the claim "undefeated in battle".

Test of accuracy: Did Alexander win every battle / A GENERAL ENCOUNTER? NO

Alexander lost battles on the day (skirmishes) to return to win the ultimate battle/war.

Wiki history would be more accurate if the claim of undefeated is removed, or otherwise clear it up with the opposing and contrary evidence as provided to give a more accurate account.

IntegritasQuodCritica (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:OR - your own conclusions, in addition to not being an acceptable reliable source, do not seem to be accurate; most sources about the Battle of the Granicus seem to treat it as one military battle; and in any case what they do describe is that although an initial feint (i.e. just a phase of the battle) was repulsed, Alexander still won, the Persian defeat being described as overwhelming...: "The Persian defeat, resulting in the loss of so many satraps and others in the Persian high command, was so overwhelming that no other army could be reassembled to challenge Alexander in all of Asia Minor."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

They are not my conclusions and the sources are reliable? Peter Green is a reliable and authoritative historian questioning the validity / impartiality of Alexander's records of history! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Green_(historian) Peter Green wrote in his 1974 book Alexander of Macedon, page 90, "Alexander COULD NOT ADMIT EVEN A TEMPORARY DEFEAT. Thus, the initial defeat was covered up by his propagandists by a very heroic (and Homeric) charge into the now well-deployed enemy. Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Granicus#cite_note-12

The other authoritative source I provided is J R Mixter. How could this not be an reliable source? J. R. Mixter, The Length of the Macedonian Sarissa During the Reigns of Philip II and Alexander the Great, Ancient World 23.2, 1992, 21-29 J. R. Mixter, “Alexander's feint attack: A reappraisal”, Military History, 1997, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 54 J. R. Mixter, “Alexander's First Great Victory” by John R Mixter, Military History, 1997, Volume 14, Issue 5, p. 50

A temporary defeat (Peter Green) remains a defeat and if there is ANY doubt about the claims from the victor, then err on the side of caution with claims.

How are these not reliable sources?

These sources do not suggest that Alexander lost any battles, so there is no support for the suggestion that "He {Alexander} was undefeated in battle..." is incorrect or incomplete. There is some irony in a paper titled “Alexander's First Great Victory” being used to support a claim that he was defeated in battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

'Greek historian Arrian (Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' c.  86 – c. 160 AD) described Alexander as: [T]he strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky.' 

The sources given are not substantiated; they give no indication of where this is in Arrian. I have been unable to find anywhere where this is mentioned in Arrian, this should either be removed or the sources changed to reflect where this is in Arrian (in case I have missed it). Thejmpjr (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 Done But more since I have doubts about the reliability of the sources... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WV now has a guide to following Alexander's route at voy:On the trail of Alexander the Great & a redirect at voy:Alexander the Great. I was going to add a link at Alexander_the_Great#External_links but the format used there is new to me & baffling. Asking here seemed safer than experimenting & easier than searching for format documentation. Pashley (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Continuation

@Khirurg: Hey. I'm looking for a proper spot to insert some material about the level of continuation between Achaemenid and Alexandrian rule. Basic forms of community life and the overall structure of government, etc, were, as you know, maintained and resuscitated under Alexander (amongst others). Would you be willing to recommend a spot, given that you have actively edited this article in the past? I wasn't able to find one, at first glance. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Either in the section "Fall of the Empire and the East" or "Last years in Persia" I would say. But perhaps it would fit better in Seleucid Empire. T8612 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Why Alexander the great?

NO CHANGE REQUIRED
The IP is very probably the same person as before. No need to entertain this POV-pushing nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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.


Isnt wiki supposed to be neutral? Then why Alexander the great ? भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the name he is commonly known by in English, so that's why this article is called that, see WP:COMMONNAME, and in particular WP:POVNAME. Paul August ☎ 13:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paul August: Only Alaxender is enough to identify him in english, adding the great is seemed to be some kind of deviation from neutrality. We can rename the article Alexander as Alexander (name) and replace this article in Alexander. 116.58.201.236 (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Please read (and understand) the previous reply. "Alexander the Great" is the name he is known by, so that is the name Wikiepdia uses. Editing the name and removing "the Great" would be the POV option, leaving it as it is used is NPOV. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (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.

@Toddy1: please see above the closed discussion. 103.67.157.110 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not know why I am being pinged in these discussions. As far as I know I have no connection with the IP editor, and cannot recall any prior discussion of this issue that I have participated in.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Toddy1: I have no clue either. In any case, I'm nearly 100% confident they are a WP:SOCK so we should just WP:DFTT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (Speedy) Not moved Sorry if I appear involved, but this is clearly WP:TE from a very likely block evading user - and has already been rejected in the immediately preceding section. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


Alexander the Great → Alexander – No need to add the great, he can be clearly recognised as Alexander only. Using the great in title is the daviation of neutrality @Toddy1: 103.67.157.110 (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2021 (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.
That's all fine, I simply opposed the move on the WP:RM page and it automatically updated this page. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

2A02:214C:8016:6600:4C60:A18B:F5A1:41B0 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

|Nationality : Greek

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian Wikipedia

As pointed out, WP:NOTFORUM. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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.


Please, someone that can speak Macedonian needs to edit the Macedonian version of the Alexander the Great page, or inform them that it goes against the Wikipedia consensus. It literally says that Alexander fought with North Macedonia vs Greece. There is so much propaganda in that article, it's insane.--MianMianBaoBao (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@MianMianBaoBao: Perhaps unfortunately, each language edition Wikipedia is an independent project, and a few language editions have been hijacked. 11:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Haven't you heard of the "Wikipedia Warriors: The New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia", a new project by the nationalist Macedonian organization "United Macedonian Diaspora"? Well, do take a look here and here, and you'll understand why the Macedonian Wikipedia is the way it is. :) Macedonian (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not the place to debate this and falls squarely into WP:FORUM territory. - HammerFilmFan
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.

Foreign language equivalent in the lede

@RandomCanadian: That's correct. I was confused with MOS:IDENTITY, but MOS:LEADLANG allows a foreign language equivalent, and in the original ancient Greek (at least in Plutarch's Parallel Lives that i checked) he is referred as Ἀλέξανδρος plainly. By the way, the same issue is observed in a number of other articles that can likewise be corrected. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Alexander The great is not a Muslim according to The Quran. Dhul-Qarnayn is not Alexander The great according to The Quran. Alexander The great is not Dhul-Qarnayn in Islam. 73.150.252.19 (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Alexander the Great was an ancient Macedonian ruler and one of history’s greatest military minds who, as King of Macedonia and Persia, established the largest empire the ancient world had ever seen. By turns charismatic and ruthless, brilliant and power hungry, diplomatic and bloodthirsty, Alexander inspired such loyalty in his men they’d follow him anywhere and, if necessary, die in the process. Though Alexander the Great died before realizing his dream of uniting a new realm, his influence on Greek and Asian culture was so profound that it inspired a new historical epoch—the Hellenistic Period.

Where Was Alexander the Great From? Alexander III was born in Pella, Macedonia, in 356 B.C. to King Philip II and Queen Olympias—although legend had it his father was none other than Zeus, the ruler of the Greek gods.

Philip II was an impressive military man in his own right. He turned Macedonia (a region on the northern part of the Greek peninsula) into a force to be reckoned with, and he fantasized about conquering the massive Persian Empire.

Bucephalus At age 12, Alexander showed impressive courage when he tamed the wild horse Bucephalus, an enormous stallion with a furious demeanor. The horse became his battle companion for most of Alexander’s life. 2001:44B8:419B:9600:201D:CF96:787E:BD2E (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Sleetimetraveller (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Change File:ACMA 1331 Alexander 1.JPG to File:Alexander the Great bust.jpg
 Not done: Potential copyright issues with the proposed picture, and the existing one is better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Sleetimetraveller (talk) why is the existing one better, when the proposed one shows Alexander's face and shoulders, and isn't as ruined. If you didn't choose I understand though :)
Maybe it's better because it focuses on the face? Please solve the licensing issue with your image before suggesting adding it to an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the licensing on File:Alexander the Great bust.jpg|Alexander the Great bust but I recommend File:Roman bust of Alexander the Great, excavated from the ruins of Herculaneum, Blenheim Palace Oxfordshire, UK (13977468218).jpg instead Sleetimetraveller (talk)

I changed it, I think this is a better representation of Alexander Sleetimetraveller (talk)
Reverted because, as I said, the shoulders and the rest are not really interesting. If you can provide a cropped version which focuses on the face that would be great. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t we use this image it’s much better.and it focuses on the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address

I provided a cropped version, and anyway its midnight so im going to bed Sleetimetraveller (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_22&oldid=1092011967"