Talk:The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Wikipedia sources

Can you cite Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article? Alekjds ^talk 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I have seen it done before on Battle of Hurtgen Forest, the German losses are cited from the German wiki article on the battle.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There. See the references section. There I cite my references, and then also the ones from the Altdorfer article to actually validate my using of the Altdorfer article as a footnote ref. I hope this clears the matter up. --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See, I could understand using Wikipedia as a source for casualty numbers, since the goal there would be to establish a sense of encyclopedia-wide consensus. Using it as a source, that is, like in this article, a major source of material, seems a bit redundant. Does anyone know of a policy to this effect? Alekjds ^talk 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You cant ref wiki in any way. Thats why those refs are now gone. Thanks, --- ÅñôñÿMôús ^{Dîššíd3nt} 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm going to be honest: This could use a copyedit. While never awful, some parts are over-wordy or awkwardly-phrased.

However, though the writing is not great, it's still reasonably good, and certainly it's a readable, informative article. In every other respect, this meets GA - it's factually accurate (to the best of my knowledge - certainly it's sourced), broad in coverage, NPOV, and reasonably stable.

So, with some minor doubts, I'm going to promote this, however, if you could have another go-through and fix it so it reads a bit better, that would be for the best. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have have another look over soon. Johnbod 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Battle of Alexander at Issus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This sentence confuses me, "Despite, or because of lying outside his usual range, the painting has become his most famous work." The prose is not very clear, please clean up.

I have added a template to the Subject and provenance section. The assertions made just before the template should be referenced.

The article is fairly short for a GA. That said I can't think of much more content that is not already in the article. Perhaps expanding on some of what is there would help but I don't see justification in raising a comprehensive argument. The images are good, the writing is fair, the references are good though there could be some more in-line citations. At this point I don't feel as though it would take much to clean up the article and I would like to hold it for a week and allow that to happen. I will notify the interested projects and editors in the hopes that some work can be done to clean up some of the prose and address the referencing needs. H1nkles (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have sources and a good mind to flesh this out. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ok now. The length is not inappropriate for an article on a single work, though certainly more could be said. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Much work has been done to the article since my review. I feel as though my concerns have been addressed and I will keep it at GA. Thank you for your efforts. H1nkles (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC-related comment...

Hello A.D. I can't bring myself to post this to FAC because it's more commentary and possibly redundant of what has already been said. But take it as you will.

• It is a well-crafted article. The historical context of the subject is well presented (a little too detailed for my taste, but that's fine). I wish there was a bit more material placing the work in art history, though. I think I am basically repeating what has been said above [if I posted to FAC]. Any material that relates to and expands the final paragraph (currently, it is mostly quotations) is what I'm after. The following statement opens up a lot of ground in this regard, but I understand that it may not have been made with reference to this work specifically, or there may be no other material to add that supports it: According to Pia F. Cuneo, "Altdorfer's construction of landscape on a cosmic scale and his spiritual and aesthetic affinities with Romanticism and Modern art (in particular, German Expressionism) have been especially singled out for praise". The article would benefit from highlighting how the painting (er, Altdorfer) influenced these later movements. But this is always a difficulty with these articles on artworks; you don't want to repeat the artist's legacy on each page about his painting (in principle; in practice it's valuable because the artist's page probably doesn't have it, sadly). Also two small things: does the tablet "hang" (caption)? I like "suspended" better, as in the text, or "floats". The wording should not connect the tablet physically to the sky, IMO, as the tablet is a device that is really outside the scene. And super-fussy, was the quoted "Iliad" italicized in the source? DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There's not much out there that I've found relating to where the artwork stands "in the scheme of things", aside from that quotation. It predates the Northern Renaissance slightly, and (as is mentioned) it was painted around the dawn of landscape. I'm not sure what else to say. There's this from Jan Brueghel the Elder in 1602, but I've only come across that by happenstance and don't know of any commentary tying it to Issus. I suppose it might be worth a look to find information on Altdorfer's legacy, though. Some portion of that would probably be relevant in the last section. Thanks for your comments. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's slap bang in the middle of the Northern Renaissance - 30 years after Durer became famous for example. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears you're right. I always had it in mind that it started in the late sixteenth century, not fifteenth. I suppose, then, that we could add a bit on that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In & of

The Art Bulletin publishes pieces by a wide range of academic art historians who cannot be called "of" it in the way employed staff-writers of other types of publication can. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? If he publishes for the Bulletin, he is "of" the Bulletin. These prepositions really don't have strikingly different denotations; I don't see why it's worth arguing about. "of" is standard for this kind of thing, so just leave it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible shorter Historical section?

My suggested shorter Historical section (refs and links taken out)

Historical setting

Main article: Battle of Issus

Detail of Alexander the Great from the Alexander Mosaic

Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BC), best known as Alexander the Great, was an Ancient Greek king of Macedon who reigned from 336 BC until his death. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest military tacticians and strategists in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. Renowned for his generalship and charisma, he always led his armies personally and took to the front ranks of battle. By conquering the Persian Empire and unifying Greece, Egypt and Babylon, he forged the largest empire of the ancient world.

Alexander embarked on his expedition to conquer the Persian Empire in the spring of 344 BC, after pacifying the warring Greek states and consolidating his military might. The first months of the Macedonian incursion, 40,000 strong, into Persian Asia Minor was ignored by the king of Persia, Darius III. The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May, was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but resulted in an easy victory for Alexander. By early November, Alexander's army had conquered Persian territories up to Mallus. The Macedonians followed along the Gulf of Issus, pushing through the city of Issus and towards Mryiandrus, a seaport on the southeastern shores of the Gulf of Iskenderun. Meanwhile, Darius had raised an army of 100,000 (some ancient sources posit figures of over 600,000) and personally directed it over the eastern slopes of the Amanus Mountains, north of Issus, inadvertently ending up at the rear of the Macedonian army's advance and cutting its supply line. Learning of the Persian threat, Alexander retraced his route the the Pinarus River, just south of Issus, and confronted Darius' force assembled along the northern bank.

The initial dispositions at the Battle of Issus. The Pinarus River separates the belligerents, and Issus is 7 miles (11 km) to the north. Cavalry is concentrated on the shores of the Gulf of İskenderun (or Gulf of Issus) on both sides. Alexander devotes himself to a right approach with his Companion cavalry, having unseated the Persian foothill defence.

At the start of the Battle of Issus, Darius assumed a defensive posture. The river bank was staked to impeded the enemy's crossing. Darius was at the centre of his army, guarded by Persian royal guard and Greek mercenaries. A group of Persian light infantry was sent to protect the army's left flank on the foothills, and cavalry stood on its right flank. Alexander made a cautious and slow advance. He led his Companion cavalry on the right, and dispatched his Thessalian cavalry to attack the Persian's right flank. He also sent a band of light infantry, archers, and cavalry to displace the Persian light infantry on the foothills. The enterprise was promptly successful – those Persians not killed were forced to seek refuge higher in the mountains.

When within missile range of the enemy, Alexander gave the order to charge. He and his heavily armed Companions cut deep into the Persian left flank. The Macedonians' central phalanx crossed the river and clashed with the Greek mercenaries who fronted Darius' vanguard. The left wing of the Macedonian army, however, was driven back by the large Persian cavalry force. After crippling the Persian left wing, Alexander assaulted the Persian centre from the side. Cracking under the assault from two fronts, the Persian vanguard was forced to withdraw from the river bank, allowing Macedonian phalanx to continue their advance and lift the pressure on the Macedonian left wing. The Persian withdrawal turned into a rout, and many were killed, trampled by those who fled with them or collapsed with their horses.

Ancient sources present disparate casualty figures for the Battle of Issus. Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus approximate 100,000 Persian deaths, in contrast with the 450 Macedonian deaths reported by Quintus Curtius Rufus. Both estimations are doubtlessly coloured. In any case, it is probable that more Persians were killed in flight than in battle; Ptolemy I, who served with Alexander during the battle, tells of how the Macedonians crossed a ravine on the bodies of their enemies during the pursuit. The Macedonian conquest of Persia continued until 330 BC, when Darius was killed and Alexander took his title as king. Alexander died in 323 BC, after returning from a campaign in the Indian subcontinent.

End of suggestion

Might be of use, or not. Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a shorter discussion of the actual battle. As it is, the treatment of the historical battle occupies more than the discussion of the painting, which is the subject of the article. It goes into way too much detail for an article that is actually about something else.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

nicely written, but one question

As an overall piece of prose, this article stands among the better-written pieces on Wikipedia. It has flow and intellectual coherence, qualities that evade bot editing. One question: is the section on the Historical setting more detailed than it needs to be to illuminate the content of the painting? There is a link to the main article (which mentioned this painting but didn't link to this article), but I confess that after a quick look I found the section here more rewarding. Don't want to leave a comment on the article's FA candidacy, because I have nothing specific to say about those criteria. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Inscription

This is a very nicely written article so far, although I agree that the historical setting section could stand to be trimmed a little. The major element I see lacking is a transcription of the huge floating inscription at the top of the painting- a transcription that is present in both the German version and the Spanish version of the article. It is given as follows:

ALEXANDER M(AGNVS) DARIVM ULT(IMVM) SVPERAT
CAESIS IN ACIE PERSAR(VM) PEDIT(VM) C(ENTVM) M(ILIBVS) EQUIT(VM)
VERO X M(ILIBVS) INTERFECTIS MATRE QVOQVE
CONIVGE; LIBERIS DARII REG(IS) CVM (M(ILLE) HAVD
AMPLIVS EQVITIB(VS) FVGA DILAPSI CAPTIS:

Because I don't speak Latin I've translated the German translation:

Alexander the Great defeats the last Darius, after 100,000 infantrymen and 10,000 cavalrymen had been killed in the Persian lines and the mother, wife, and children of Darius had been captured along with 1000 wildly fleeing cavalry.

Note that Darius is described as "den letzten Darius", which in German literally means "the last Darius" but can also mean "the dying Darius". I don't know if "ultimum" in Latin carries the same connotation, so I've left it as "last" for now. Lithoderm 06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but we have a translation (in the "description" section) - the same, except with the escape of Darius himself. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I could've sworn I read that section, yet there it is... Lithoderm 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The first or not the first

Kanō Masanobu, 15th century founder of the Kanō school. Zhou Maoshu Appreciating Lotuses, hanging scroll

Wood is wrong. I wrote among the first because as we know the Chinese and the Koreans and the Japanese were heavy at it prior to 1500, I added among the first, perhaps the first in Western art might work too...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he meant in Western art "since antiquity", obviously. It wouldn't be anything like the first globally, but I think that is clearly the context. The Chinese had been at it since the 7th century. I've added a "Western" at the start of the section anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, I think that works better - I don't think the differences are that obvious to every reader concerning Eastern art and Western art, and it helps for us to be specific...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Geographical accuracy

"Altdorfer's piece was markedly different from its companions, particularly in that it was by far the most geographically accurate." Whether it is markedly different is arguable, but the main problem with this claim is later in the article the painting's geographical accuracy is called into question and also the other paintings don't attempt the same geographical scope, so their accuracy can't reasonably be compared.(and no one knows where Alesia is.). Does Silver back up this claim with any details? Yomangani^talk 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can recall. I agree that the correctness of the claim is compromised by the fact that the companions were not concerned with geographical accuracy. I'll review the wording just there and consider taking out that sentence. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuremberg Chronicle

I was interested enough in the reference to the Nuremberg Chronicle to look up the relevant portion, which is here under LXXV recto. I've extracted the figures it refers to here, if it's of any use. More interestingly, the Chronicle account also mentions a mountain beside Tarsus, which it refers to as Thaurum. Alexander...zohe mit großer eyl vber den berg Thaurum vnd kom in die statt Tharsum: "Alexander... moved with great haste over the mountain Thaurum and arrived in the city Tharsus". It is possible that this is a reference to the Taurus Mountains (given their proximity to Tarsus), conflated by secondhand accounts into a single mountain. I don't have any references for this second point, of course, but it is interesting to consider. Lithoderm 06:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are also the depictions of Alexander and Darius from the Nuremberg Chronicle, if they're of any use. There is a more colorful version of Alexander here. And congrats, all, especially Anonymous Dissident. Lithoderm 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Persian kings as depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle- Darius on top
• 
  Alexander - it is worth noting that he is one of the very few rulers depicted full-length in the Chronicle

Thanks for your interest, and for the pointer. For completeness, it may be worth including the name the Chronicle gives to the mountain rise. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done A.D., Litho, Yomangan, Johnbod and everyone else...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

History

Let me repeat: The Battle is not the historical context of the painting. It is the historical context of the subject matter of the painting. Unless you are implying that the picture was painted, or at least, conceived, in the thick of the battle of Issus. Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The title is "Historical context", not "Historical context of the painting". The latter is your own extrapolation. In any case, "context" is too abstract a noun for this kind of semantics to be meaningful. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda. A section titled "Historical context" can reasonably be assumed to be about the historical context of the subject of the article. Amanda's extrapolation is the reasonable one. I don't know what you mean by saying that "context" is too abstract a noun for this kind of semantics to be meaningful. The meaning of the word is perfectly clear, as is Amanda's distinction between the painting and its subject matter. The section should be retitled: "Historical battle" is clear and informative to the reader. Srnec (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"A section titled "Historical context" can reasonably be assumed to be about the historical context of the subject of the article." That's what I'm saying, and not what Amanda is saying. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the subject of the article is the painting, not the battle. But the subject of the section is the battle. The suggested change seems an improvement to me also. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. "Historical battle" is a terrible section title, and it does not properly encompass the material. My feeling is that you're being anal for no good reason. We now have "Historical setting" and "Background". Any reader with a modicum of intelligence will be able to divine that the former pertains to the historical events, and that the latter pertains to the background of the artist and of artistic depictions of the battle. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A section with a mainarticle hatnote to Battle of Issus and that describes nothing but that historical event and its context is not "properly encompassed" by the title "Historical battle"? How could these intelligent readers figure out that "Historical context" refers to the historical context not of the painting (subject of the article) but of the thing painted, but that "Background" refers not to the history that is behind the act of painting (i.e. the historical events depicted) but rather to the background of the commission to paint? This isn't being anal. It's reading comprehension, like from elementary school. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Historical" is the key word. The section does not concern just the battle. Don't change it back to that. I'd sooner having "Historical background of subject". Just give me the rest of the day to think of a title. If I haven't by then, I'll bow down to consensus. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Date

In the second paragraph of the Historical setting it states "Alexander embarked on his expedition to conquer the Persian Empire in the spring of 344 BC". I know he was a precocious little devil, but this means he was at it when only 12 years old. Presumably this should be 334 BC?--Quentin Durward (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agh, yes. Thanks for picking up on that. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Battle of Alexander at Issus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604061317/http://www.pinakothek.de/alte-pinakothek/sammlung/kuenstler/kuenstler_inc_en.php?inc=bild&which=8303 to http://www.pinakothek.de/alte-pinakothek/sammlung/kuenstler/kuenstler_inc_en.php?inc=bild&which=8303

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) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Title

Hello all,

Fairly new to editing, apologies in advance for syntax errors here. I suspect the title of this work is actually "The Battle of Issus" and not "The Battle of Alexander at Issus". Please see the Fine Art America page and the Wall Street Journal article that both reference it as this. I do see a few web pages that reference it as the current title but IMO they seem less credible. Would love a second opinion on if this different title seems to be more accurate.

{needhelp=}

Best Swat510 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The title in German is simply "Die Alexanderschlacht". However, German names of battles usually take the form "Schlacht bei Waterloo", literally "Battle at (or near) Waterloo", where English usually goes with "The Battle of Waterloo".

This means that "The Battle of Alexander" is not a correct translation, since the battle was not fought at a place called Alexander, but might lead to confusion. A more accurate rendering of the title might be "Alexander's Battle": and then you would wonder "which battle?" So "at Issus" has been added to make it quite clear for Anglophones, but it is not part of the original German title at all.

The are all sorts of rules about WP article titles, but in general they revolve around what the majority of reliable sources call it. So to find the correct title you would need to consult every reliable source in English (ie printed books, not a few web pages) dealing with this painting and do some adding up. And even then someone else would object and invoke other obscure WP rules, and it would end up as "Alexander's Battle (at Issus)" etc..... MinorProphet (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the present title is probably best, and used by some very respectable sources. Others, like Frederick Hartt and this guy, use "Battle of Alexander and Darius on the Issus" and so on. It would have to be Battle of Issus (Altdorfer) anyway. It's best, at this period, to avoid any notion of "correctness" in the titles of paintings. Generally the titles are given much later, and many Renaissance paintings change their titles very frequently, on the whim of curators - see eg the Arnolfini Wedding. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I completely agree that the current title is correct. Strangely enough, someone was showing me literally yesterday evening what the van Eyck is all about - I never knew how complex it is, a bit like Las Meninas. MinorProphet (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)