Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This paragraph is some what misleading

"Historical accounts describing Alexander's love for Hephaestion and Bagoas as sexual are strongly contested under the claim that they were written centuries afterwards and thus are necessarily dubious. Others retort that the same can be said about much of our information regarding Alexander. Such debates, however, are generally considered anachronistic by scholars of the period, who point out that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity. Sexual attraction between males was seen as a normal and universal part of human nature, since it was believed that men were attracted to beauty, an attribute of the young, regardless of gender. If Alexander's love life was transgressive, it was not for his love of beautiful youths but for his persistent love of a man his own age. The ancient Greeks saw sex as an activity, not an identifier, a viewpoint shared by contemporary cultures at the time."'

I believe the above paragraph is somewhat misleading given that there has been research done by leading academics of the time period, which lead to some questioning as to how accurate the statement really is. Bruce Thornton has done some interesting research work on this matter who according to Mary Lefkowitz:

"The most accurate and comprehensive account of ancient Greek erotic experience available in English. Bruce Thornton bases his discussion on the ancient sources, rather than on modern theory or preoccupations that might keep readers from seeing what the Greeks thought and said. Instead, he takes the reader directly into the Greeks’ way of describing and dealing with problems we still face today." ~ Mary Lefkowitz, Wellesley College

Just my two cent. Mallaccaos, 28 July 2006

Cleanup of Popular Culture section

Two things I noticed. One, the Alexander Shinken anime series is referenced twice. Two, I think it was TV movie with William Shatner rather than a TV series as stated. Hope that ain't too controversial. ;-) (82.12.202.32 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

Book of Daniel

(note: to some, this is the completion of a prophecy mentioned in the book of Daniel. this involves certain actions that occur before the coming of the messiah, which before The Rapture, must occur again). The book of Daniel is commonly dated to be from the 2nd century BC, more than a century after Alexander's death. For more info, visit the book of Daniel's own page. I will delete that section of the article for the time being--Darthanakin 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also deleted a sentence about the Book of Daniel being written 200 years before Alexander's birth. I seem to remember that sentence stating that it was written 200 years AFTER Alexander, but my memory may have slipped, no matter.--Darthanakin 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If you are going to delete the Book of Daniel you might as well delete the whole aritcle of Alexander the Great since most of what has been written about him came hundereds of years AFTER HIS DEATH. I believe the Book of Daniel should be left in there since there are many out there who believe it does talk about Alexander. Mallaccaos, 1 August 2006

I have no idea what's going on here. The Book of Daniel certainly talks about Alexander, but it is not a major source on Alexander's life. It is generally agreed to have been written several centuries after Alexander, so it's not significant as prophecy. I see no reason it should be particularly mentioned here. This material more properly belongs in Book of Daniel. john k 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for edits

It's of course fine to revert edits that you think are a bad idea, but I don't think it's a good idea in general to revert edits because they haven't first been discussed on the Talk page. The wiki system is based on the idea that the normal way to propose a change is to make the change--if people don't like the change, they can change back some or all of it. This method is the one that has allowed Wikipedia to grow to a million plus articles in a few short years, and should not be exchanged for a process of having an online discussion group about each significant edit unless it's absolutely necessary. Nareek 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

"Sexual attraction between males was seen as a normal and universal part of human nature, since it was believed that men were attracted to beauty, an attribute of the young, regardless of gender. ... If Alexander's love life was transgressive, it was not for his love of beautiful youths but for his persistent love of a man his own age. The ancient Greeks saw sex as an activity, not an identifier, a viewpoint shared by contemporary cultures at the time"

This paragraph is full of personal opinions and not based on even the few material which most scholars can even say are facts on Alexander's life. There is no evidence that Alexander's had any persistent "love" for Hephaestion in a romantic way at all. None of our four contemporary historians on Alexander EVER say or make the claim that Hephaestion and Alexander's relationship was anything other then plutanic. And that comment about the ancient Greeks view on sex is also misleading for the convenience of certain modern individuals who were trying to justify their lifestyle. Apro, 31 August 2006

I am not sure about the whole paragraph, but the fact that men were attracted to beauty, an attribute of the young, regardless of gender is true and attested in ancient greek literature. for example Plato in one of his dialogues, begins with the attraction Socrates felt for Alcibiades, who he named "My swan!". I cannot quote something special about Alexander at the moment, but i think that ancient writers have left some traces of him having an affair with Hephaestion. However, what is completely wrong and will be immediately removed by me, if it'll be re-inserted in the article, is placing Alexander in the category of paederasts... --Hectorian 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The "attraction" that most ancient Greek writers talk about is the psyche not physical as some have wrongly interpreted. No one is saying that homosexuality in ancient Greece did not exist, it existed as it has through out human history, but the misinterpretation that some are putting on how widely and openly accepted it was, is not as accurate as some would like us to think. As far as Alexander and Hephaestion goes, not one of our four contemporary historians: Arrian, Plutarch, Quintus nor Diodorus; the four historians on Alexander that all later writers such a Aelianus used for the bases of their stories on the ruler ~ not one of these four contemporaries ever said, ever wrote or ever left any traces of Alexander having an affair with Hephaestion. Infact Curtius uses the Roman term amicus which means friend or comrade to describe Hephaestion's relationship with Alexander, never the Roman word amans for "lover"; and our Greek historians Plutarch, Arrian and Diodorus use the Greek term philos which means friend even in modern Greek to describe Hephaestion's relationship to Alexander never the terms erastes or eromenos(which some credit to mean lover); Alexander himself calls Hephaestion Phil~Alexandros(friend of Alexander). The term eromenos was only intoduced in later times by dubious authors, which is why modern scholars question the relationship being romantic. And I agree with you on the paederasts category. Apro, 31 August 2006

There was a whole debate going on in the article "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece." I have done some research on the subject but I did not want to express my opinion because I might get blocked like everyone else who questioned it. The truth is that homosexuality and pederasty, even if it was seen as normal(which is questionable)would have been limited to the aristocracy and never would have been widespread. People believe what they hear and that is why it has been such a common belief now.

The whole theory contradicts itself. If it was so widespread why were there laws against it? Plato and Aristotle wrote of homosexuality as being "contrary to nature." I've heard that it was common in the military which is ludicrous. The Spartan Constitution, as if they didn't want us to get the wrong idea, wrote this:

"If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he [Lycurgus] approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as an abomination; and thus he caused mentors to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other." (Lacedaemonian Constitution,II. 13.)

I also completely agree that the attraction Greek writers talked about is the psyche. There is a difference between caring for someone rather than having that person be your lover. MegasAllexandros 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though Cretanpride has created yet another sockpuppet to spread his agenda to a new article. Please see the quite lengthy conversation at Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece to note how thoroughly these claims can be dismissed. CaveatLector^Talk 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which one is Cretanpride? Apro or me? 66.53.237.254 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, please stay out of this. Look, I don't care! Greeks don't care! NOBODY cares if he was bisexual. I don't care whether people think Greeks were bisexual. The question was raised and I responded. I'll tell you what, I withdraw what I wrote. I'll let Apro do the talking in that case. My goodness!!!MegasAllexandros 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if someone could seriously dispute the existance and acceptance of homosexuality in Ancient Greece. No matter how much he/she will try, there will always be the writings who clearly contradict him... When Socrates called Alcibiades "My swan!", he could have anything in his mind, but not psyche! But calling the ancient Greeks paederasts is sick, and total crap! In no source can someone find sexual abuse against children! --Hectorian 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean regarding pederasty? I'm just curious.MegasAllexandros 21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

U are Greek, u know exactly what i mean... the english word comes from the greek word 'παιδί', meaning 'child'. Paederasty, by definition means the sexual abuse of minors, of children. so, childhood (if i am not mistaken) extends till the 12 first years of someone's life (or maybe till 15). the age in which people in Greece and the most of the western world are free to make choices regarding sex, is nowadays placed on 16 years of age. Not that this means that the ancient Greeks had an exact same law, but there is no indication on ancient greek texts concerning sexual relations of people who were not at least teenagers. so, the word 'paederasts' cannot be applied to the ancient greeks at all. Although i have not got involved in articles concerning this (cause i knew that i would get extremely pissed off-something that would lead with mathematic accuracy to my block), i am shocked on how easily some editors are trying to attribute sick characteristics to the Greeks --Hectorian 21:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people can believe whatever they want. It's like believing a certain religion. I honestly don't care what people think anyway. MegasAllexandros 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, your understanding from where the greek word παιδί is derived from and to whom it was/is applied is not false. BTW, Hectorian, a slight correction on that passage by Diogenes Laertius; it was not Alcibiades whom Socrates called "My Swan!" but Plato and it was not because of his physical beauty but as I said above his psyche. Diogenes tells us in his life of Plato that one day Socrates had a dream about a young cygnet who was sitting down when it suddenly plumaged forth and flew away singing sweetly. The next day when Plato was introduced to Socrates, he "recognized" Plato as the cygnet of his dreams, what Socrates meant by calling Plato "My Swan" was based on his dream which was associated on Plato becoming a great student who would pass Socrates' teachings on to others, which is what Plato did do and its further evident of this given that in Greek tradition the swan was associated with the Muses who's main funtion in Greek society and literature were A) to performed metrical speech; and B) the mouth pieces of teachers/authors/writers. Also right before his death when Socrates is explaining the immortality of the soul he talks of the joy at impending death to that of a dying swan which sings the loudest and sweetest right before it dies in its anticipation of going into the presence of the Gods and not in an expression of grief. The saying "swan song" is derived from this. :) Apro, 1 September 2006

The post just above, signed by User:Apro, was from User:168.233.254.6, who's been posting since Mar 3 2005; edits deal mainly with biographies of Greek-Americans and related matters. Has also posted as User:BONK. It's certainly not true, as he claims below, that he just started posting on Wikipedia. I'm willing to consider that Apro/BONK/168.233.254.6 isn't Cretanpride, but things look fairly suspicious. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me, this is my first post on Wiki. I'm Apro, have been Apro on several othe message boards, don't chance my user name when I join new message/chat/or whatever boards and will continue to be Apro. My views are always clear and I like to work with as much facts as possible and not assumptions and opinions. If CaveatLector has a beef with Cretanpride, take it up with him/her. As for your message MegasAllexandros, I agree with most of what you said. Apro, 31 August 2006

Sockpuppetry Accusations

There are appropriate places to make sockpuppetry accusations. This talk page is not one of them. Sockpuppetry accusations effectively ended a productive discussion earlier in which one user, Apro was proven to be innocent. Please refrain from posting sockpuppetry accusations on this talk page. Post them elsewhere. Thank you. Heraklis 00:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, MegosAlexandros has been confirmed as yet another sockpuppet of Cretanpride. Hopefully some progress can be made here. Hectorian, I believe that your motives are actually quite pure, and wouldn't mind discussing the finer points of this article with you at length. I think your misunderstanding the definition of the word pederasty, which actualyl includes relations between adults and adolescents. Adolescenthood stretches past the age of 14 (usually to the age of 16 and as far as 18 or 19 if I'm not mistaken), so even though the Greeks were not having sex with 10 year olds, that is not what anyone is suggesting. CaveatLector^Talk 04:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

n.b., User:Apro is also a sock of Cretanpride. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so fast in calling Apro a sock. If you look this edit he just posted here, [1], you'll see that in the last edit signed "Apro" the IP is [[2]], that of an anonymous editor active since 2005, with more than 500 edits. And the checkuser has stated "inconclusive" regarding the hypothesis Cretanpride-Apro.--Aldux 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, thanks--I saw that Apro had been blocked by an admin and reacted too quickly. I retract my statement, and apologize to User:Apro for mistakenly calling him/her a sockpuppet. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alexander's Mount Rushmore

I added a section showing work on a Mount Rushmore kind of thing about Alexander. I was not able to find a whole lot of info, but I thought readers would be interested. MegasAllexandros 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope u do not mind me renaming the section. I think it is better to have the facts and not to use the word 'Rushmore' until the work is finished, or until the section gets larger, so that info about 'prototypes' and influences will not serve as 'headlines in newspapers' (u know, just to attract the reader attention:)...). --Hectorian 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. I meant that I thought the section was interesting, not the name. MegasAllexandros 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting indeed! I wonder what some will say when it'll be completed:p --Hectorian 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why this page is without interwiki links and categories? For interwiki links see sr:Александар Македонски. --Djordjes (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

did he?

was alexander by any chance the first foreigner to come to india? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.145.34 (talk • contribs) .

probably not. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty

There has been a mini-edit war on whether this article should be added to category:Pederasty. Please discuss the issue here. Borisblue 04:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)