Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Audio

pronunciation of his name: will it be useful?> that's the native pronunciation and word in Greek>
Alexander the Great Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας([Alexandros o Megas]^ⓘ); or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος

CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, since it uses the modern rather than the Classical pronunciation ("Alexandhros o Meghas" rather than "Alexandros o Megas"). People most likely won't be interested in that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ok but, wait what? You want me to spell it on the well known Classical Greek pronunciation? i'm kidding, with that logic no article about antiquity is worth an audio. amirite? It's not interesting because the Classical Greek pronunciation is "somehow" different than the modern one? As far as I know (O.R.? no-.-) the Greek Alphabet, established centuries before Alexander is the first Alphabet in the narrow sense of phoneme-per-letter reading. Which means what you see is what you read and spell. Dialect writing has sub-symbols. And as far as any Greek reader here can see the, as you say, "modern" name of Alexander the Great, is written 100% exactly the same from the coins [[1]] of the Hellenistic Period of the 4th century BC until right now, today, without any fake adjustments. Correct me if i'm mistaken, good sir. Unless you mean you want the exact King Alexander, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ, that these coins depict ? and even if the modern is indeed magically somehow 100% different, isn't it desirable for foreigners to know the native term? of how he called himself, how his name is written on the coins and how his people pronounced it(roughly or correctly)? or even just the native term of a pop article... and aaanywho i think it's ok to add a file for a name so many times mentioned, considering Estados Unidos Mexicanos has its own file, wait two files, for pronunciation. (not that Mehico is less important mis amigos)CuteHappyBrute (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It ought to say that it's the modern pronuntiation, until someone finds reliable sources stating that the pronuntiation has not changed substantially since antiguity --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the articles on Delta and Gamma rightly state, the pronunciation of the letters changed after Classical times (Hellenistic - Roman). Since Alexander lived in late Classical times (his death considered the beginning of the Hellenistic era, usually), the pronunciation of his name in later Greek might be irrelevant. Just my 2 cents. If you decide to include it, though, make sure you use a disclaimer like the one Enric mentioned. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

correct you speak, good sirs. did you see me say "label my audio, ancient Greek speech"? of course it is modern greek. who would be 100% sure about a minor or major change? and even it has been a total change. i never mislabeled my audio. it IS modern Greek-Attic. delta and gamma still today float from "dd" and "gg" shuffled, to dt and gk stopped. no denying that. but the main understanding of the letter is always there, from the phoenician syllabic alphabet, to the greek phonemic one. in Crete, south Greece there is today a dialect in which the word "salt" goes from "alati" to "aratsi"(lol for us). does that change the base of the word? no. not to even mention the weird long pronunciation of the archaic dialect of Cyprus.. that mustn't even be IndoEuropean (xD). plus "Alexandhros o Meghas" AND "Alexandros o Megas", are today still existing dialects of Greek. i repeat. label it arabic/chinese/!click language. it's just an audio that reflects what's the name of this article in its native language,today, modern Greek. As i said,1st with that kind of logic every audio about anything coming from ancient times is unusable, 2nd many articles have audios, that's why i thought it would be cool. if it's boring/unrelated, ok.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All good, mate! Go ahead and add it. Just my 2 cents, like I said. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough votes yet..=[ What about MY dignity? It's just weird how people try to prove the Greek language is soo different from Antiquity. I'm far far away from being an expert but with the narrow sense of the alphabet, that is the greek one, only slides and stops can change in the spelling of the very same letters. Still, it would be difficult to bring a 2500 year old Greek around here to prove anything. Just think of his arthritis. Not to mention he wouldn't be a linguist and would be bullied around, around here. I am talking about Modern Greek. I would bring my grandad from Crete , but he's just a 103yo boy prolly jumping around on green grass as we speak. Just let it here. If people find it interesting , ok, if not, ok too. =D CuteHappyBrute (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why reconstruction exists; our best bet ;). In any case, only a few sounds changed in "Alexandros o Megas" so just add it with a note saying it's in modern greek. Don't worry. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected. Of course there should be a note saying it's modern greek. Besides, the letters I see written are modern Greek 100%. I don't believe modern greek cursive letters existed in 300 BC. I'm talking about them that should have an audio. I wouldn't know how valid reconstructions can be. But I'm sure amused, in the good sense, with Germans and others pronouncing him "Alexandgos o Meyahs" That's all. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, they sure can't pronounce their Rs (no offence ;). In any case, yes, I'm simply talking about sounds and we have a decent idea that and how they changed. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

lol they can't? naww, I dunno. I suggested this by example.. I also liked this article's audios> Xenophanes, where the Greek pronunciation exists (that I put later) and also the English one of the Englisized name of him. but still. in a rich Encyclopedia like this, with so many millions of contributors and gigantotitanic servers I think they should all be welcome as long as they don't interrupt with the flow (which i think they do, that "help/info" thingy needs to go and just leave the lil sound symbol for a link, so that reading flow isn't bothered)..anywayz, I've sensed negativity in beautiful articles like these. Let's not be like that. Just bring the creative part of the conflict.. I mean look at all the "ambiguous" Greek-related articles.. they may be a lil chaotic but they sure are the richest there is... so Love, Peace and hair Greece. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough, though I'm not convinced that a modern Greek pronunciation would be particularly relevant or helpful on the English wiki. (If it were on a modern Greek figure or place, that would be different.) Why not take it to el.wiki? Aristophanes of Byzantium's article says that the "tonal, pitched system of archaic and classical Greek was giving way (or had given way) to the stress-based system of koine" by his life in the second half of the third century BC. No doubt the pronunciation would probably be quite different. Brando130 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

sure. but keep in mind those accents are 100% mutually intelligible, even for kids who speak Greek and secondly the stressed ones still exist today in dialects such us the Cypriot one. as of course does the normal one. please see this, since you do not talk Greek and you need to see sources to believe me and because i am not Originally Researching> [[2]]the stressed is still used and even if you spell any word with the stressed pronunciation, only the stress changes, not the core of the word, it's like saying "Alexandros" as opposed to "AlExssandrus"(and that would be an extreme-fake approach of a possible change, from Attic to Cypriot for example, that differ a lot). thirdly, Modern Greek are Attic-Ionic. a more straight and clean dialect. the descendant of Koine that Alexander the Great spoke together with his Macedonian dialect as any villager of any country would speak a little different in his village as opposed to the city. see this> [[3]] what i mean is that the Modern Greek pronunciation is the closest to what his name sounded like, originally. unless you say because it's the modern one, the English one applies better in the English wikipedia. (btw in the Greek wiki it would be useless, because they know Greek there, we have Spoken articles for educational purposes etc) Just like Chinese cities and other non-English names, I thought I'd put the name, because some people like that kind of "native" stuff. Just how I like listening to [[4]] by a native Russian as opposed to an Anglicized version of it from an English speaker, as you say would be appropriate. that is my only equivalent motive for suggesting it. because i know how the English pronunciation of an English version of a Russian word would sound like. but not the Russian one. Just my opinion and taste. oh btw i also think the audios and etymology takes up too much space. like that> Makednos it overloads with explanations x[. just saying my personal taste about the subjects. CuteHappyBrute (talk)

Well there were no accent marks when Alexander lived, they were invented later, and even then, as Greek diacritics says, "the distinctions it represented had disappeared from the spoken language early in the Christian era. Since the pitch accent eventually gave place to a dynamic accent, and aspiration was lost in Greek, most polytonic diacritics have no phonetic significance in the modern language, merely reflecting ancient Greek etymology." But if you're simply arguing that the modern Greek pronunciation is probably closer to the original pronunciation than other languages, well obviously thats true. Still, the pronunciation may have been quite different, and I'm of the opinion that Alexander the Great, Aristotle, and other specifically ancient Greek articles are not helped much by an audio link with modern Greek pronunciation - where Athens, Corinth, Thessaloníki, on the other hand - are great candidates to add audio on how it is pronounced in modern Greek (much like your St Petersburg example) Brando130 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my point, as well. Alex III was a historical person so the modern (or the later, in any case) Gk pronunciation is irrelevant. On the other hand, the article Alexander (name) would be a good place, perhaps, since the origin of the name is Gk and it's still used as a name by the native speakers (inserted with a disclaimer of course). 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

oh. i thought the ancient-modern thing applied only to Greek stuff, in some weird way. As long as it goes with any non-English stuff, it's ok. Thanx. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The modern pronunciation is absolutely correct!! It is 100% the same as in the ancient times! (Alexandhros o Meghas). The view that the classical pronunctiation was different than the modern was introduced by Erasmus, but he later stated that he was wrong; it was too late though. The "wstern" world is still taught the Erasmian pronunciation, even if it is widely accepted that it is not correct.Pope & Patriarch of Rome, Benedict XVI accepted this recently in his rather recent visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (of Constantinople), where he and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomy I read the Lord's Prayer in Greek,and both read it in "modern" Greek pronunciation. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but NO spoken language remains the same over thousands (or even hundreds) of years. The Lord's Prayer is not even written in Ancient Greek, but in the Koine form used in the Bible. The Erasmian pronunciation is bogus, sure, but that doesn't mean the modern form was current in ancient times. His Beatitude the Patriarch uses the modern pronunciation because it's the only one available. Ask any educated clergyman, he'll tell you the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexander vs. Ptolemy

I mean, how can Alexander be an "ancient GREEK king", and Ptolemy an "MACEDONIAN general". Is the nomination "Greek" reserved for kings only? Fix it, either in this or in the article about Ptolemy, it's rather confusing to see how can a king be a Greek, and his general a Macedonian. Bobvo (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Like Athenian Generals that were both Athenian and Greek.... Spartan Generals that were Spartan and Greek..... etc... Ptolemy was Macedonian and Greek.--Crossthets (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The expression “an ancient Greek king” for Alexander is wrong and is a literally denomination and not historical one. It refers to today’s concept of Greece and later developments that describe Hellenistic cultural unity of the territories that belonged to the large Macedonian Empire. This term “ancient Greek king” may be used in school books to avoid confusion between pupils. Primary and secondary history books still contain chapters named History of the Ancient Greece where Macedonia and whole Hellenistic world is included. In more mature terms Alexander III was a king of Macedon, King of Macedon Empire (which included entire today's Balkans), King of Asia, and King or Pharaoh of Egypt. He was „Probably of Greek origin“ if his dynasty was of Greek origin, what is presently denied by majority of historians. Modern historians, with respect to the later long traditions of various types of empires, i.e. large kingdoms and states that included many smaller states, territories and local powers, consider Alexander still to be not an emperor but a King of The Macedonian Empire tout court. The term is under strong pressure from politically biased Greeks and Macedonians (FYROM) who both wrongly believe that the race, nation and ethnic belonging could justify political rights. This standpoint being racist and tending to establish unjust states is condemned and I think that it should not be present on these pages. Please correct and put simply that Alexander III of Macedon was a king of the Ancient Macedonia. Draganparis (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree with you my friend. Ancient Macedonians were a greek tribe. They were speaking greek, worship the same Gods with the rest of the Greeks and had Greek names. For example Alexander means protector of men and Phillipos means friend of horse. Alexander took greek education by Aristoteles. But you already know that. Of course his empire included the intire Balcan peninsula, Asia Minor, Egypt, and all the area until India. Alexander was a Greek king not because he was the king of Greeks but because his nationality was greek. After all one of the greatest geographers, Strabo (greek: Στράβων) said that 'ΕΣΤΙΝ ΟΥΝ ΕΛΛΑΣ ΚΑΙ Η ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ' which means 'Macedonia is Greece too'. Before Alexander united all Greek city-states he was the king of Ancient Macedonia, as we say that Leonidas was king of Ancient Sparta. After the union of Greek city-states he become the emperor of his panhellinic empire. Kovas (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I am sorry. The language difference was greater then between todays German and Dutch, or Russian and Bulgarian, because these people can comunicate in both languages!, while Greeks and Macedonian could NOT comunicate in Macedonian. Therefore Greek language was used for communication and it was permanently translated. But unfortunately we can not even develop more discussion about that matter here. I stated here and at other places, including Wikipedia pages, how the things stand and gave numbers of references. Please read just Arrian and come back. Alexander III was a king of Macedon. But he was a king of the Greeks also, as he was king of Asia, but he was not a Greek king. Full stop.Draganparis (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The royal house of Macedon was accepted as Greeks after Alexander I of Macedon. So Alexander was Greek and Macedonian. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you did not give a reference (well, shell we repeat again: please give a citation), I assume that you wanted to say: Herodotus (5, 22 and 8, 137) maintained that the Argeides were a Greek dynasty. My replay is that this does not mean that Greeks then and the modern historians today really accepted that the Macedonian dynasty was of Greek origin. We know so well that up to Alexander III the Greeks were expressing their repudiation of the Macedonian Royal House (calling them barbarians, Demosthenes for example on many occasions), that Alexander III himself was expressing strong Macedonian nationalism (one example is the case of Phylotas, but there are many other situations; as well his choice of his generals or distribution of high official positions, almost all being given to Macedonians) and that as soon as Alexander died, Macedonians living in Athens found themselves in danger (Aristotle, for example) – but this says of course nothing about the origins of the Macedonian Royal House. What we need is a proof that Greeks considered Macedonian kings as – Greeks. And there is no such evidence. Eugene Borza wrote extensively about that interesting problem (“In the shadow of Olympus – the emergence of Macedon”, ch. 5; “Makedonika”, Chs 5 and 6) and I think that we have to accept that the question is unsettled. Draganparis (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The case is rather simple. The Macedonian royal house was Greek. I gave you a wikilink for detailed discussion that does have this claim sourced. However, you can also try to follow Herodotus 5.22 and find your answer before you make further unsourced claims. Aristotle was by no means a Macedonian, you seem a bit confused about ethnic identity. It's quite possible to have several ethnic identities. For example, today one can be a Jew and an American or a Turkish and a German. That's called mixed identity and this concept can be surely applied to Alexander. Take a look at the Windsor dynasty in UK, they have German roots and some of them could legally claim German citizenship. Still, they're considered British. Same for Alexander, he had Argive ancestors and thus a legally verified claim to be a Greek like his ancestor Alexander I, but he was also a Macedonian king and thus essentially the Macedonian because this country defined itself as a kingdom ruling over several tribes. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No mater how many “Wilikinks” (where is your link, my friend?) you give you can not change the facts which are: the question of whether Macedonian dynasty was Greek is not settled. The experts do not believe that they know what is the truth about this. Draganparis (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your "friend". I quoted Herodotus with a link to the source that isn't a wikilink and he makes it perfectly clear that the royal house was of Argive descent and accepted as Greek. You have provided zero sources for your statements so stay away from the keyboard or do some actual work and back up your claims with actual sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down please. Please read what I wrote and what you wrote. It is easy to understand. Above I cited Herodotus (5, 22 and 8, 137) and then I cited two modern references of Borza. This should settle the issue of the origin of the Royal House of Macedon. Full stop.

What concerns your answer. In the response you wrote: “I gave you a wikilink for detailed discussion that does have this claim sourced.“ Then you claim „I quoted Herodotus with a link to the source that isn't a wikilink...“ To this which is quite devoid of sense, I answered that you did not give a wikilink, (as you then addmited also - you gave a link to the “Perseus” instead, and just repeated one of two references to Herodotus that I gave). I even doubt that you read Herodotus and Borza since you seam to be completely ignorant of the second place from Herodotus that I gave which gives more details about Argives ancestors, and of the extensive discussion and the problems surrounding determination of the origin of the Argeid dynasty. You even did not understand what I wrote about Aristotle… Instead you claim that Aristotle was not a Macedonian!? Of course he was not, but how relevant it was when he risked his life in Athens after Alexanders death! You probably do not know that he was surrounded by the Macedonians all his early life – father being Amintas physician, and was close friend to Amintas, as Aristotle was close friend to Phillip II (Aristotle was certainly more Macedonian then Henry Kissinger is an American!!) BUT: I have never seen such a hostile dispute, so much hate in a simple discussion of eventual origins of a remote dynasty that has NO relevance to anything in particular today. What kind of madness is going on? All that nonsense with the insults that you did not spare, I think, disclose a person unsuitable for further discussions. Full stop. Draganparis (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexander undefeated in battle?

It is said and universally believed that Alexander was undefeated in battle. It was even claimed by the ancients at many instances but I have unearthed the following very interesting extract from Polyaenus's "Strategimata" (Polyaenus is also a Macedonian by the way for those who think that we have no Macedonian writers and of course he wrote in Greek).

So, Polyaenus says in his chapter about Alexander :

(13) The Macedonians having fled from the field, Alexander changed the coat of mail into a breast-plate: which was a protection to them, as long as they boldly faced the enemy: but if they fled, they exposed to the foe their naked backs. This had such an effect: that they never afterwards fled; but, if they were overpowered, always retreated in good order.

Now this is a direct hint at an unknown defeat of Alexander although there is absolutely no mentioning as to when and where this incident happened.

GK1973 (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the claim is that Alexander's troops were never defeated on combat when Alexander was leading them. So they might have been defeated when he wasn't leading them. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Polyaenus sadly does not give more information there is unfortunately no way to know if he was leading the army at that particular battle... It is a very interesting text though, isn't it?

GK1973 (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference to being undefeated in battle specifically meant: 'any Pitched Battle'. Alexander could not take the Persian Gates at first and had to retreat and find a way through the mountains to get to the rear of the Persian army who was defending the pass to Persepolis [See Arrian III.18.2]. Alexander also faced fierce fighting in Bactria and had to divide his army and not all the battles by various legions and their results were recorded by his historians. We would never know if he was defeated or not, as only his victories were recorded.

--Pavasta (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I like how this article - as his father's - has references next to "he is Greek"

Quite humorous. What's next referencing that USA is American? --Leladax (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Alexander was Greek is disputed. It was hotly disputed in his lifetime by opponents of Macedonia.Dejvid (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

lol, what is not disputed is your fyr macedonian extremist nationalism. You're slavs, get over it. 195.74.239.12 (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"by opponents of Macedonia": perhaps you mean Demosthenes. Why don't you say "by an opponent"? Who else disputed Alexander's Greekness during his lifetime? Not to mention that Demosthenes used to call Phillip and Alexander "non-Greeks", but also "non-barbarians". Puzzled? So, what were there? Perhaps he considered them non-humans, aliens. In addition, I wonder why Demosthenes is quoted as an "expert" on the subject, since there is evidence concerning his "love for money" (case of Harpalus-also see here), so he could well be considered a biased sourse. Apropos, Herodotus proved the Kings' of Macedonia Greek blood in book 5, paragraph 22 of his Histories. Also, the history of the Ancient Olympic Games, in which the Macedonian princes where taking part (remember that only Greeks were allowed to take part), proves their origins. But this is what happens when a politically motivated minority opinion gets the same status as the majority and historically excepted by numerous sources opinion. Editors are asked to prove that " a breathing man is alive" and that "the sky is blue".--Hectorian (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

see my response to your comment in the dicussion. how can alexander's history be complete without his battles? if he is confrontted by courageous people, and is defeated or retreats, is it not about him? his enemies made him what he was! akmal makhdum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.217.56 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Our "Hectorian" friend would profit from reading history books and the sources (Arrian, Curcius Rufus, Diodorus, Justin, Plutarch). And may be some lists of the winners of the Olympic games. Draganparis (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As Strabo claims: "There remain of Europe, first, Macedonia and the part of Thrace that are contiguous to it and extend as far as Byzantium; secondly, Greece; and thirdly, the Islands that are close by. Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece, yet now, since I am following the nature and shape of the place geographically, I have decided to classify it apart from the rest of Greece and to join it with that part of Thrace..." Strabo, "Geography", VII, Frg. 9, Loeb. The only reason you'd hear Alexander the Great to be <<Macedonian>> (and not Greek) is because Skopje claims via propaganda to be descendants of <<Macedonians>>. Of course, that is not true. When Alexander the Great was alive, MAKEDONIANS WERE GREEKS JUST LIKE THE ATHENIANS AND THE SPARTANS WERE ALSO GREEK TRIBES. That means Alexander the Great is Greek and a Macedonian, Ancient Makedonia was not a foreign nation but a Greek kingdom. --79.166.60.225 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But Strabo also says the following: "The Thessalians in particular wore long robes, probably because they of all the Greeks lived in the most northerly and coldest region" [11.14.12].
As Macedonia is located north of Thessaly it is obviously not a part of Greece, nor the Macedonians were Greeks, for the most northerly Greeks were already the Thessalians.

Resistance at India

This is an article about Alexander, not about the courage of "the free, democratic tribes of the Indus and the mountain dwellers of Hindukush". Also, please, provide specific sources from specific historians for the quotations instead of stating "Historians say". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Historians say that in the month of “May of 326 BC,… Alexander did not realize that this was the golden apex of his life. His spirits buoyed at having just won the most adroit and subtle of all his battles in fabled India.” This ‘most adroit’ battle was a bloody and exhausting affair when the free tribes of North Punjab fought the Macedonian invaders and accompanying mercenaries with such heroism that stunned the Macedonian Alexander. He had not confronted such ferocity in valour before. Over half of his army, the 100 thousand that he had amassed from his journeys through Greece, Persia and Central Asia, was destroyed. This was not done by a multinational army of millions. It was done by an army fifth his size, with fewer cavalry and infantry. He and his soldiers were shaken. He, as a leader, and claiming to be a god, could not publicly countenance the prospect and declaration of a humiliating retreat. For the first time in his life he suffered series of defeats by smaller forces. But, “his men had fallen prey to an entirely different appreciation of the situation….” The “Macedonian and Greek core of his army, in particular, had been with him since he had crossed the Hellespont in 334 BC. After eight years of fighting, their numbers were dwindling and they were exhausted, yet on they marched behind the Invincible One…” That is the description of the official Greek historians: claiming faith in the individual but accepting that even that god-claiming individual was beaten and the soldiers saw it. The army was beaten in spirit. “The army reached the banks of the Hyphasis (Beas) River in July. The city of Sangala had resisted Alexander and now was a corpse-strewn ruin. There was little to savor in the victory. The Indians had fought hard again, inflicting an alarming number of casualties”. This alarming number of deaths as a result of military action of Punjabi defenders from the Indus valley; their actions in battle against the Greeks meant that most Greeks had been killed in these small battles, on the outer borders of India. “Rumours flew about the camp that the kingdoms against which Alexander would lead them could muster thousands of war elephants and hundreds of thousands of tough soldiers. Fatigue drained the men's morale”. This was the result of two minor campaigns: one in Swat and Buner valleys and the other in North Punjab. Greeks were only on the outskirts of India. Their back had been broken at the gates of North India. The spirit of the invaders had suffered seriously. They doubted Alexander and his leadership. He too would have realised the futility of his effort because destruction of his army was in front of his eyes and he knew that he was not the great general he had been making others believe. He was fighting a different creed of people as he entered Nuristan and North Punjab. The resistance by the brave tribesmen and women was such that he had not encountered before and as a result, could not withstand it anymore. He and his army were beaten. He and his army knew that if they left the same way as they entered India, they would not reach home alive. So, he chose the path of rivers and then the Sea, to escape with his life and the lives of the few who were left with him. He was aware of this situation and said to his Greek soldiers, cowering in fear of the next Indian tribe, “He said, should they withdraw now it would be a gross encouragement to peoples in their rear to rise in revolt and contest every inch of the march home”. How had he come to this stage? “Coenus, an old officer, spoke…He pointed out how few were left of the Macedonians and Greeks who had set out for Asia with him. Many had died in the battles and sieges along the way; more had died of sickness…”. Obviously, this had not happened by coincidence. This was no freak accident of nature. It was the fact, proven by the indefatigable character and relentless courage of the free, democratic tribes of the Indus and the mountain dwellers of Hindukush. akmal makhdum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.217.56 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mummy

Why is this category applied to this article? Although there are historical reports that his body was preserved, the mummy does not exist today so, IMHO, this category is inappropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Copying emperor infobox to a different wiki

Excuse me, but can anyone tell me, how to copy the template for Alexander's details. I am creating an article for the Maltese wikipedia. - Eragonshadeslayer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.96.119 (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You will first have to create Template:Infobox Monarch on your local wiki (the article uses "Infobox emperor", but that's just a redirect to "Infobox Monarch"). Just copy/paste the source code of the template, and remember to indicate where you copied it from. Then you will be able to use the template. You might also need to copy Template:Infobox Monarch/doc. If {{documentation}} doesn't work, then create and copy/paste Template:Documentation, or replace it with {{/doc}} (remember that it always has to be in the middle of those "noinclude" tags!) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, can you explain this again because I am new to Wikipedia and I have not really understood how templateds work yet. - Eragonshadeslayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.96.119 (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

well, I just created mt:Template:Infobox_Monarch and mt:Template:Infobox_Monarch/doc on the maltese wikipedia. You have to go to those pages and edit them to translate the names, like "reign", "coronation", "successor", on both pages (don't worry, it's very easy). Drop a note on my talk page if you need some help, instead of posting here. Remember to preserve the capitalization: "Queen" is not the same as "queen" and the template will not work correctly if you mix them up. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexander's defeat and retreat from India, starting in Swat, Nuristan and ultimately in Multan

the source of my insertion/comment are historians of antiquity: arrian, diodorus, plutarch and more recent ones like Tsouras and tarn. all are implicit in their estimation that he was beaten in India and died as a result of his wound in Multan, having lost all ability to fight, mentally and physically.

akmal makhdum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.217.56 (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All?? What are you talking about? Give proper references.. just citing some names does not mean anything. Have you read any of the sources you mentioned? There is no mention of events such as these in no ancient writer's work, but if you have found something that I have not (surely not cited by the above mentioned historians), produce it and we will see.

GK1973 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

have you read any of this yourself? are you some sort of a self declared scholar in the field? does it bother you in some special way? what is your issue? if any of this is mentioned (as you challenged) in any of the books would you just go away?

here is one, read it and keep you peace, please! don't get emotional. read Plutarch , Vita Alexandri,62, Worthington 2003, p. 162, Narain. Alexander the Great: Greece and Rome pp. 155–165. read also wikipedia about kripa and his battle in north india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.217.56 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I am much more versed in the ancient texts than you think, I still have to ask for the texts. In Plutarch's works, both in "Life of Alexander" and in "of the fortune and virtue of Alexander there is no mention of any defeat that made Alexander abandon his cause or any wound that resulted in his death. The same applies for Arrian and Diodorus as well as Curtius, Polyaenus and every other ancient or medieval writer I have ever encountered. I have no problem whatsoever with Alexander not having been invincible since I have already provided this forum with a source directly referring at a defeat (see some lines above). BUT, there is one thing to say that Alexander was not perfect or unbeaten (according to my opinion Hannibal was an ever greater tactician than Alexander) and another to throw in data never written by the ancients as if they did. If what you refer at is the incident when Alexander was wounded by an arrow during an assault against the Malli, then there is no ancient writer hinting at it being the cause of Alexander's death some years afterwards nor that he was somehow beaten by those unfortunate people who were slaughtered by their enraged enemies.

So... again : You wrote :

1. "the source of my insertion/comment are historians of antiquity: arrian, diodorus, plutarch"

? Give the texts. There is no text supporting your allegations stated further on.

2. "and more recent ones like Tsouras and tarn."

Give those too, although ancient sources are preferable to some hypothesis. However if these are well founded they are of course worth mentioning.

3."all are implicit in their estimation that he was beaten in India"

Who says that Alexander was beaten in India and by whom? He won every battle attested to and only some worthy resistance is being mentioned that ended in Alexander slaughtering his enemies. "implicit" is a strong word that shows absolute certainty. So, either you have NO idea what your alleged sources say or you are the one with an agenda, a "self declared scholar" who "is bothered in some special way".

4."and died as a result of his wound in Multan"

?Again... there is no such account written in any ancient source. His death was years later and is attributed to much but not to such a wound. Is there any modern hypothesis you read?

5. "having lost all ability to fight, mentally and physically."

Now isn't that an emotional statement... Again, there is NO source claiming this. Do I have to remind you of Alexander's fury at the refusal of his men to turn back? Or weren't his men and Generals afraid (as they should be) when facing Darius at Arbela, when Parmenio urged him to attack during the night against this huge army of a hundred myriads? And of course the subduing of the Malli was after his decision to grant his men their wish.

So. Do you have anything that can support your story or not? If not, "will you then go away"? or "keep your peace, please"?

GK1973 (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

1. i am not sure what makes you an expert on this subject as your approach is biased and 'alexandro-philic';

let me quote you one from Plutarch 'As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander....'

2. you appear to be pushing the same myth of invincibility the epic writers of antiquity wrote about alexander; most were epics written by his own greeks {who normally wrote plays and acted in theaters] than objective reality. that seems to be the theme you are touting. that is an emotional and biased approach without the ability to question their bona fide.

3. in psychology there is something called 'selective deafness' or 'selective blindness'. those who wish to see only one aspect of something are enslaved by a passion of believing the same, they see only the same. that, in my estimation is your current condition about alexander.

4. if you read what i write, it says that his determination and that of his army were beaten by the fierce resistance of minor principalities and mini tribes of north India. his army was reduced to less than one fourth the initial size that he took months gathering from all over central Asia and Persia. you refuse to see the whole picture, relying in emotive protestations like an infant that he beat them all, he beat them all!

5. he might have overcome these minor adversaries but his resolve, his army's resolve (see the mutiny in his army after his fight with poru) proves that the remaining mercenaries and the Greeks were keen to live and not all die in India. was that not their fear? why did he gove in this time? he saw the dwindling numbers.

6. why did he choose to retreat then? if he was not beaten, then why did he choose to leave by rivers and the sea? did you not read that the main reason he gave was that he feared the same level of resistance from the freedom loving tribes of north India and feared that the rest would be also cut down and that he wished to retain some sense of [false] victory?

7. now, i have given you the names of the books and also the references, go and read them, think before getting emotional about them, reflect on them and see the overall picture i have tried to draw rather than fall into the spell of an epic written by mostly Greek historians, who were totally biased in narrating history.

8. the fact is: he entered India to conquer it; tribes and small princes of mini states cut his army and his body to a ruinous remnant; he turned tail and left, his army scared of moving forwards. this time he followed the army, not the other way around.

9. Malli were a tribe, not a collection of a hundred thousand mercenaries. Multan was a small tribal city. was their so-called subjugation not while retreating? was he not running away? what do you call a running away commander, who has not achieved his target? alexander!

10. he, reportedly, never lost a battle! did he not lose the war here? did he not get injured and never again fought anywhere else personally leading any armies?

look at the bigger picture, beyond the myopia of personal or intellectual bias. all biases are emotional, so i advise you to follow your own advice about being emotional.

read these books and texts again, with the assertion i have made above. this would open your mind to a different scene.

maybe you can read these texts about kripa, his losses in buner and swat valleys, his cumulative losses there and against poru, his cumulative injuries, last one in Multan, then being carried away to his slow death, getting frail and feeble. all this happened nowhere except northern India. are these not facts? he did not conquer anything after his retreat from India. how many months before he died? this is Tsouras' assertion that he died of his wound to the chest/lungs he received in Multan.

these are simple, common sense deductions. now, let us we not exchange anymore until you have read these texts [again, i presume you have read these before], and as you are such an expert, can you find these yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.217.56 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers :

"1. i am not sure what makes you an expert on this subject as your approach is biased and 'alexandro-philic';

let me quote you one from Plutarch 'As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander....'"

I am not Alexandrophilos and I have already proven that by being the first to mention that according to the ancient sources Alexander was NOT undefeated in battle. But this is one thing and making wild deductions to lessen the man's ability and splendor is another thing. You have provided with NO quote that Alexander was defeated in battle in India. He conquered Porus's army, he beat the Malloi and everyone else in his way. His army's pleads to return home have nothing to do with your claims that Alexander was somehow or somewhere beaten in India and of course you are a little bit mixed up since the war against the Malli is AFTER that incident on his way south. And of course AFTER Alexander was injured (I will only refer to Arrian here), the Malloi surrendered their lands, Mousikanos too (Arrian VI.15), conquered 2 cities of Oxycanos (Arrian VI.16)the rest surrendered, took back Syndimana, again fought against rebelling Mousikanos and razed the cities that sided with him, marched against Patala but its inhabitants deserted the city and Alexander persuaded them to return, reached the Indian Ocean and returned to Patala where he marched against the Oreites Indians and beat them and the Gadrosians(Arrian VI.21&22) . And of course even after the famed "Symfiliosi" and the departure of 10.000 Macedonians to Greece, he marched against the Kossaians (Arrian VII.15). He also ordered fleets to be built in the Caspian and the Hyrkanian Seas and he discussed another expedition against the Arabs (Arrian VII.20)

"2. you appear to be pushing the same myth of invincibility the epic writers of antiquity wrote about alexander; most were epics written by his own greeks {who normally wrote plays and acted in theaters] than objective reality. that seems to be the theme you are touting. that is an emotional and biased approach without the ability to question their bona fide."

I am not claiming that Alexander was unbeaten as I have numerous times already stated. I just claim that there is absolutely NO evidence to support your claims that any Indian army beat him or that he was "psychologically and physically crushed"... And of course these are NO epic writers writing about Alexander.. Plutarch was a historian as was Arrian, a politician and general too, as were all there sources, Ptolemaios, Alexander's general and Aristoboulos. And of course then the royal ephimeris was also available, this is the official military archives of Alexander, something like a very detailed ship's log. These people were no tragodoi and wrote no theatrical plays... It is clear that you know very little about the sources on Alexander. In order to support something as radical as what you do you need to really look into them and try to find arguments.

"3. in psychology there is something called 'selective deafness' or 'selective blindness'. those who wish to see only one aspect of something are enslaved by a passion of believing the same, they see only the same. that, in my estimation is your current condition about alexander."

You may name my "condition about Alexander" as you want but reality is that you have never read the sources and you are just jumping to wild conclusions. We can have areal interesting discussion on Alexanders vices and virtues as attested by the ancients, on his deeds and exploits but still... you have nothing but your wishful thinking which in turn I would call a "total blindness" situation. If you choose to understand the text you gave as "Alexander was beaten by the Indians and thus, mentally and physically crushed, devoid of any will to live he flew back to Babylon to die" then it is your right. But to try and persuade us here, that there is any credence in your words is futile... You can support your theories about how the Greeks embellished his life (they did) with exaggerations but to say that your position is "implicitly" supported by the ancients does really give a new meaning to the word "dabbler".

"4. if you read what i write, it says that his determination and that of his army were beaten by the fierce resistance of minor principalities and mini tribes of north India. his army was reduced to less than one fourth the initial size that he took months gathering from all over central Asia and Persia. you refuse to see the whole picture, relying in emotive protestations like an infant that he beat them all, he beat them all!"

What you write makes absolutely NO academic sense. That he lost many of his men, he did and that was AFTER the incidents you mention during his march through the Gedrosian desert. If you look at his losses during the actual battles, you will find that these were minimal, as was always the case in pitched battles for the victor. "You refuse to see the whole picture, relying in emotive protestations like an infant that he was beaten, he was beat!" Again, I support that at least in one unnamed account he WAS beaten.... (again see above where I give Polyaenus' account)

"5. he might have overcome these minor adversaries but his resolve, his army's resolve (see the mutiny in his army after his fight with poru) proves that the remaining mercenaries and the Greeks were keen to live and not all die in India. was that not their fear? why did he gove in this time? he saw the dwindling numbers."

??? Alexander is mentioned to have had more than 150.000 soldiers at the time. Numbers was not his problem. His veterans, loaded with booty, wanted to return instead of endangering their lives and wealth. This has nothing to do with Alexander's wishes as is "implicitly" stated in the same wish, nor with what WOULD have happened if he chose to push forward or return with a new army. He might have won, he might have lost. That his will was not crushed I have already shown by the numerous military actions he is accounted to have taken AFTER his injury. Before his death, he sent 10.000 veterans home and ordered for more new recruits to be sent to him and he made plans for more wars and expeditions. Nope.. he was not "crushed", he took a breath. Do you think that on his way to Babylon he did not stop? Of course he did... for years... It has to do with regrouping one;s forces, with securing what has been conquered etc...

"6. why did he choose to retreat then? if he was not beaten, then why did he choose to leave by rivers and the sea? did you not read that the main reason he gave was that he feared the same level of resistance from the freedom loving tribes of north India and feared that the rest would be also cut down and that he wished to retain some sense of [false] victory?"

He retreated because he had to regroup, secure his new (vast) dominions and to form a new army. Among the accounts we have of Alexander returning after the Indian expedition is that the 30.000 Persian youths he had ordered to be trained in the Greek language and the Macedonian arms were ready and very well skilled in maneuvers. To retreat when seeing that your men are for any reason unwilling is not peculiar nor a sign of cowardliness. the Indians were freedom lovers as were many other nations he conquered among them the Southern Greek states. The Malloi are accounted to be the bravest men of India and he conquered them easily, despite his personal wounding, militarily speaking. A man such as Alexander was not afraid to press on, he was not afraid of dying, a he clearly showed even in this incident. Armies do not just keep on fighting new wars every day... they need a rest, resupply. It is very childish to say that Alexander was defeated by the fame of the Indians, tribes he had fought and conquered many times. The mere truth of his death allows for such speculations by people who for some reason wish to diminish Alexander's personality but calling your ideas "implicitly supported by all sources" is inexcusable.

"7. now, i have given you the names of the books and also the references, go and read them, think be"fore getting emotional about them, reflect on them and see the overall picture i have tried to draw rather than fall into the spell of an epic written by mostly Greek historians, who were totally biased in narrating history."

My affinity with the ancient texts is nothing I can persuade you to in a forum. The obvious thing here is that I have read these sources and I can quite easily debate / discuss in them. Have you? Just saying that Arrian and Plutarch were "theatrical play writers" and of course ignore that we also have Roman sources on the matter shows that unfortunately you have not given the whole thing the proper attention...

"8. the fact is: he entered India to conquer it; tribes and small princes of mini states cut his army and his body to a ruinous remnant; he turned tail and left, his army scared of moving forwards. this time he followed the army, not the other way around."

The fact is : He entered India to conquer it. Tribes and small princes of mini states (as Porus, Taxiles and the Malloi?) were all beaten and conquered with no exception and once he was injured as he had been so many times before. He recovered and continued to fight and conquer more Indian lands. Abiding by his men's wishes he turned South, gave some more victorious battles and returned to Babylon to plan his new expeditions.

So.. you can say that his men were frightened, too content with their current exploits, scared of the big strong Indians with their longbows and staff, but this is not what you claim... What you say is a total inaccuracy that blatantly diminishes this great leader's personality. According to this thinking, all conquerors are broken men because they did not choose to fight every single day...

"9. Malli were a tribe, not a collection of a hundred thousand mercenaries. Multan was a small tribal city. was their so-called subjugation not while retreating? was he not running away? what do you call a running away commander, who has not achieved his target? alexander!"

The Malloi were a tribe that was famed to be the bravest among all the Indians and had numerous cities and armies. Porus was a great king and according to Arrian he entered battle with 30.000 foot, 4.000 horse, 200 elephants and 300 war chariots, not his complete force since he had first sent his son against Alexander with chariots or chariots and cavalry and he left many a thousand men in his camp, those he couldn't trust in their ability. Arrian amounts the Indian casualties to 20.000 foot and 3.000 horse and the Greek and allied casualties to 300 men. This analogy is by no means peculiar for an ancient battle since the vast majority of casualties were inflicted during pursue. Skirmishing was considered more bloody than pitched battles (for the victor). In Saggala, where Porus came to Alexander as an ally with 5.000 Indians and elephants, he killed 17.000 and captured another 70.000... His casualties were 100 men... You should read Arrian V.27, where Coinos, son of Polemocratus talks on behalf of the army in this very incident. "...They all long for their parents, if they are still alive, their wives and children, they long for their homeland, which they wish to see and for this they should be excused..." In V.25 you will find the speech of Alexander to his men, read especially the passage in the 6th paragraph.

And of course in order to "run away" (very poor choice of words indeed) there has to be someone chasing... What you fail to understand is that a retreat is not a flight. When you run away you do not conquer more lands... No one chased the Greeks for noone had stood victorious against them yet in India. Noone is disputing the courage, the valor or the courage of the Indians here. All ancient writers "explicitly" stress these attributes. It is you who, for some reason try to undermine the exploits of Alexander... I guess that according to your reason, Alexander was afraid of the Celts over the Istros (Danube), and this is why he did not continue his exploits there, he was afraid of the African berbers and the Sudanese, since he stopped in Egypt, the Arab tribes, since he did not "dare" invade Arabia Deserta, the Colchians, Albanians and Iberians of the Euxinus Pontus and all other bordering tribes, kingdoms or empires he did not conquer... Maybe he turned east out of fear of the Romans and the Carthaginians too? And of course he was also afraid of the Lacedaemonians, since he chose not to militarily subdue them...

"10. he, reportedly, never lost a battle! did he not lose the war here? did he not get injured and never again fought anywhere else personally leading any armies?"

He reportedly has lost an engagement (... look above...) but this was not named. According to the major sources (Plutarch, Diodorus, Arrian and Rufus) he did not... He did not lose a war... For a war to exist it has to first be declared... All the wars he declared or the wars the Indians declared against him he conquered. He didn't cross Yphasis and the Indians across Yphasis did not cross it to engage Alexander. What you are saying is that he did not march against those Indians not that he was beaten by them. Had they attacked him, then we could talk of a lost war, even if no battle had been fought... But they did not...

He was injured on several occasions and all are attested by the same sources. No... Alexander did not personally lead the attack for the first time, nor was he injured for the first time...Alexander ALWAYS fought in the first line of battle and for this he was reprimanded by his bodyguards and advisers. But... that was Alexander...

"look at the bigger picture, beyond the myopia of personal or intellectual bias. all biases are emotional, so i advise you to follow your own advice about being emotional."

I am looking at the bigger picture.. I sincerely think you are not... You are emotionally tight with the effort to prove that Alexander was beaten by the Indians. Anyway you look at it he was not... In order to be beaten there has to be an enemy... Even if he had cowered out of crossing Yphasis (I disagree with this opinion, but theories is something the academic community has never been short of) he didn't lose any declared war, for none declared any war against him and won...

"read these books and texts again, with the assertion i have made above. this would open your mind to a different scene."

...

"maybe you can read these texts about kripa, his losses in buner and swat valleys, his cumulative losses there and against poru, his cumulative injuries, last one in Multan, then being carried away to his slow death, getting frail and feeble. all this happened nowhere except northern India. are these not facts? he did not conquer anything after his retreat from India. how many months before he died? this is Tsouras' assertion that he died of his wound to the chest/lungs he received in Multan."

I do not know of this "kripa" and I would be very interested in reading it. So, yes they ar not facts... what losses? frail and feeble? He had just celebrated his thirtieth year of age! The wound in question he received about 2 years before his death. As for the real cause of his death...so many have been proposed and this wound is highly unlikely to be it... No infection was reported and in these two years he went through so many battles and hardships that clearly show he was in no ill shape. Tsouras has proposed yet another hypothesis... no problem with that...

"these are simple, common sense deductions. now, let us we not exchange anymore until you have read these texts [again, i presume you have read these before], and as you are such an expert, can you find these yourself!"

These are not simple but simplistic deductions. Please.. read your/the sources well and provide if you wish the complete texts. I only used Arrian this time but it is as easy to cite any other ancient or medieval historian. Get your story together, it is your right to stand by it but you just cannot claim that your opinion is "implicitly" supported by ancient bibliography.

GK1973 (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

May I recommend the following reference to fact check: The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, as described by Arrian, Q. Curtis, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin (Westminster: A. Constable and Co., 1896, 1972)?

--Pavasta (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the above book is by John M'Crindle.

--Pavasta (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help imposing to interrupt your huge bickering. Isn't this supposed to be about rectifying a Wikipedia article, not who is wrong and right? Look at what you wrote: the last malicious thing said was indented to the fifth degree!!! There is a problem there. And GK1973 & Akmal Makhdum, you don't even know each other. How can you fight with a total stranger who you have never seen and have to argue with by typing it online??? This is a totally gigantically ridiculous farce. Give it up!!!!!! (And that goes to both GK and Akmal.) If you guys really cared about Wikipedia, you would take your fingers off those keys and shut your traps about this. Alexander the Great is a person. You two are arguing about hypotheses made by modern-day historians. Only Alexander the Great knows what happened, because he was the only one to live the life he lived. The End! Goodnight! -BlueCaper (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct death date

Many sources say it's June 10 or even different date, what's up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeronxeron (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows for sure:

Historians disagree about the date of Alexander's death (Aristobulus (30th or 29th) last day (triakàdi) of Daesius; Plutarch 28th of Daesius; Daesius was the eighth Macedonian month). While 5th-century Armenian version of the Historia Alexandri Magni, The Alexander Romances reports 4 th of Pharmouthi as the day of the death,which corresponds to 13th of June; but according to contemporary Babylonian Astronomic Diary, which is most credible and accurate source, Alexander has died on 29th Aiaru (10th of June). Alexander III of Macedon died in his 33rd year; and had reigned for 12 years and eight months.( 8 month -Arrian; 7 month Diodorus)

Source: John J. Popovic [5] BluePanther (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Alexander died in Babylon, Babylonian Astronomical Diary (E-numa Anu Ea...) is the most reliable, recording the death on Ayyaru Day 29 (June). But the exact day would depend on the time of death and when the Babylonians knew about the death to record it. If he died during the day, then it was probably recorded on the same day, if he died during the night, then it would have been recorded on the following day. Alexander was probably in coma for a while before he died, which would also be a factor. With the information available now, it is impossible to fix the date to either June 10th or 11th.

--Pavasta (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

(unable to add to main Wiki page of Alexander the Great)

• Alexander the Great of Macedon - From History to Eternity BluePanther (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Alexander the Great of Macedon - King of Macedonia and Conqueror of the Persian Empire BluePanther (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources you have provided are both from irredentist and propagandistic sources and, thus, are invalid. Please, remember that POV pushing is not allowed. 87.221.4.104 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical Novels

Dear All,

Alexander is one of the major characters in the new novel: Roxana Romance, which is about the life of Roxana, Alexander's wife. If there are no objections, I would like to request the following to be added to this page:

Historical Novels

Cave, A.J.: Roxana Romance, Pavasta: 2008, Hardcover, ISBN 978-0-9802061-0-4, eBook, ISBN 978-0-9802061-1-1

Perhaps others can add other ficional books to the list.

Thanks & Regards

--Pavasta (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Only mentions on notable novels, please. Also, this would go better at Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the quality of the Secondary and Modern Sources

Dear all,

After reading through the heated debate on Alexander's retreat from India and re-reading the article, here are my suggestions:

1) Re-organize the sources as follows and put after the Legacy:

   1) Primary Sources - None have survived.
   2) Secondary Sources - Greek and Roman sources from later periods, etc. listed chronologically?
   3) Modern Sources - Works of Alexander's modern scholars
      - Combine References, Further Reading, as the distinction it not clear. Arrian and Plutarch do not belong to Reference
        but to the section on Secondary Sources.
      - Non-Hellenic perspective, etc.
   

2) Expand the Modern Sources.

  The current lists: References and Further Reading, do not list any of the top Alexander's scholars, such as 
  Professor A. B. Bosworth's 5 0r 6 books, or Professor Waldemar Heckel's books - both excellent.
  Professor Pierre Briant's Book: From Cyrus to Alexander should be listed under the Non-Hellenic perspective.

This can help with some of the debates. For example, Tarn is mentioned in debates but not listed anywhere as a modern source.

Also, it might be better to move the Notes to the end.

--Pavasta (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Message to us, “Googwik” scientists (people who do their researches almost exclusivelly on Google and Wikipedia.): There is already very well defined classification of the sources for the biography of the Alexander III of Macedon. Wikipedia can not have yet its “Googwik” scientist’s classification. Or you would think why not?. Draganparis (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Draganparis,

If your comments are directed at my comments, I am not quite sure what to make of your “Googwik scientist" remark, but I assume good faith on your part.

To answer your question, if it is not a rhetorical one: "Or you would think why not?" My intent was to improve the article. Wikipedia is not consistent across the board. The suggested reorganization of sources, even if they are at variance with Wikipedia's 'well defined classification', they follow the way sources on Alexander are normally classified. It could improve the usability of this article. My intent was not to create more work for folks who manage this article and I would have volunteered to do the work myself, if the article was not locked. Please feel free to ignore.

Regards, Pavasta (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, you misunderstood me completely (as people normaly do, so let me improve on this here). “Googwik scientist” is a term that I use to designate a non-scientist who believes that he/she could become one by reading only Google and Wikipedia articles. This is not very well defined category of people since we all look up in Wikipedia now and then for the things we can easily consult serious literature. I belong to this group, unfortunately. Take it as friendly, although I think the critical approach is obvious. I hold Wikipedia very unscientific, but we do not have better “democratic” site that is about knowledge on the Internet. As to the classifying Alexander literature, I think you should use one the “real historian” already use and certainly NOT invent new one for Wikipedia! If you would start one “Wikipedia classification” then… you may qualify as a Googwik Nr 1. The one Richard Stoneman used is recognised by the experts. (R. Stoneman: The Greek Alexander Romance, Penguin Books, 1991, I would think.) Draganparis (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Draganparis,

Thanks for the clarification. I am familiar with Richard Stoneman's translation of The Greek Alexander Romance (Penguin Books, 1991). My suggestion was based on the work of the following Alexander historians and to the best of my recollection, it does not conflict with Stoneman. Here are a few examples:

A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge University Press, 1988)

A.B. Bosworth, The Legacy of Alexander: Politics, warfare and Propaganda under the Successors (Oxford University Press, 2000)

W. Heckel, The Wars of Alexander the Great (Routledge, 2002)

W. Heckel and J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great: Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell, 2004)

P. Green, Alexander of Makedon: A Historical Biography (University of California Press, 1991)

But, as I said, please feel free to ignore my suggestions. My intent was to contribute to the excellence of this article.

Regards, --Pavasta (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstanding. Yes, introduce the classification that is already accepted. It is just fine what you are trying to do. Happy Christmas.Draganparis (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Inncorrect info

It says that after the battle of Granicus that he travelled down the ionian coast how ever this is on the western side of greece not to the east or so my maps tell me --Jimmy Pyro (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ionia was on Turkey, which is to the East of Greece. From Ionia: Ionia was an ancient region of central coastal Anatolia in present-day Turkey (...) It consisted of the northernmost territories of the Ionian League of Greek settlements. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Ionia was on Greece, geographically in Asia Minor, in modern-day Turkey.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Age on encountering Bucephalus

The entry claims that Alexander was but ten when Philoneicus brought a wild steed from Thessaly for Philip's inspection, but I have seen it claimed elsewhere that he was as old as fourteen. A citation and a caveat would be apposite.

Also, there is much more to the story than is given here. Would I be correct in assuming that it has been abbreviated for brevity's sake? Crusoe (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Names of Alexander (in lead)

Shouldn't Sikander, Iskandar be included as names of Alexander in the lead? Millions of people know him by these names. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Sikander just a translation to another language? Hindustani or something. The lead can't contain translations to all languages spoken by millions. What are the historical origins of that name? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sikander and Iskandar are sort of translations. Alexander became al-exander and, of course, the al was assumed to be the word of so it became iskandar and sikander. While the lead can't contain translations to all languages spoken by millions, it can contain some translations of names to languages spoken by millions. Especially when those millions are a part of the history of the historical person in question. I do note though that the online britannica does not do this for its Alexander entry (not that wikipedia is Britannica!). --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is already a section detailing the names he had Alexander_the_Great#Names (sorry for not noticing before). You could add those names there, and correct any mistakes.

About the lead, the problem is that he wandered throught many linguistic domains, and, even if you just add the most representative representations, it would still clog up the lead a lot (and would start a lot of fights on which names deserve going into the lead and which don't). This is the english wikipedia so it's supposed to give preference to the more usual names on english, if on a different language he is known under a different name, then there are the wikipedias on other languages. There are also size problems, see WP:LEAD#Length, ading some names would mean having to shorten or remove other info. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to his motives in the Personality section

This might be a rather redundant question but what was Aexander's reason for being a conqurer? Was it conquer or be conquered for him? Did he simply feel obligated to change the world through military might? Was he just an earlyer version of Adolf Hitler who thought the entire world should be like his kingdom? Did he do it just because his parants raised him to be a conqurer? Was he a self-proclaimed freedom fighter hoping to rid people of the opression of their current rulers? Is there any answer at all to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.195.66 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 October 2008

"Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Hellas and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia, which I took from you..."

Alexander's letter to Persian king Darius in response to a truce plea. Arrian, "Anabasis Alexandri", II, 14, 4

..maybe this helps? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia150.140.227.238 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another addition to the personality section that should be considered is something, however small, discussing the thought that Alexander was hermaphroditic. It is not a guaranteed fact, but something saying that it has been recently proposed somewhat widely as a high possibility would be a good addition.--Reis6412 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: It appears to me that, at first, Alexander basically wanted to conquer ancient Greece, possibly to an extent of "all-that-was-at-one-point-or-other-held-by-a-greek". His alleged outburst that Phillip might not leave anything for him to conquer could point to such a (somewhat narrow) scope. Seeing Greece "united" before Phillip was dead might then have expanded his goals: Persia and Greece were ever rivals in the eastern mediterranean, so with a historical reference, and citing revenge as justification, he would have a rhetorical platform. His inflammatory speeches were, after all, famous in his time...

At this point, his goal seems to me to hold the eastern mediterranean first, and then use the wealth garnered by the trade here to take the rest of the mediterranean. admittedly, I have nothing to support this, other than the fact that it was the goal of his roman successors as well. Once he had Egypt, though, he must ahve seen that he couldn't conquer the western part without a much larger fleet than he possessed. He needed more timber, more skilled workers, more of just about everything. If he was to get the fleet up and running in his (impatient) pace, that is. Africa, as known to the europeans of the time, didn't have wood in excess of what was needed locally. In fact, so far he'd only gotten it as far north as Thrace and Illyria. So he goes east, at about the same lattitude, looking for more forests.

And here, his goal changed: His victories had turned into so many that his empire to the east was actually greater than the one he had wanted to the west. Why not move his focus to what he had, instead of what he might obtain? It was already an established tradition to partially adopt the cultural and/or religious practices of those conquered (vide the Greek/Egyptian mutual influence), so now that he was no longer on a simple loot-and-pillage, Alexander lays the plan to uproot and mix his peoples, so he (and his successors) won't have to spend all his time quelling rebellions...

All that said, I think he was quite unscrupulous. A great tactician, possibly, but also a butcher. People were either his subjects or his enemies. An excessive consumption of alcohol turned him into a temperamental paranoiac, meaning that his last-days court must've been comprised of toadies, because any perceived affront -real or imagined- saw the perpetrator to his grave. Smolk (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ptolemaic Kingdom

This article ascribes this kingdom to consist of Egypt and 'Palestine' among others in 270BC. No such place as 'Palestine' existed at that time. The place was Judea. 'Palestine' was the Roman renamed province for Judea after Jewish revolt in the 2nd Century CE, to insult the Jews further. No amount of historical revisionism by Wikipedia will change the reality of what was or what is now Israel. It casts your enterprise into disrepute and nothing you publish can therefore be trusted.Eigthman (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and have never edited an article before. However I am doing a research paper on Alexander on Wikipedia and have thus noticed a few things that I think could stand to be altered. For instance, the summary box on the right hand side of the page. Alexander is said to have had another child named Heracles (Herakles) by his mistress Barsine, but he is not mentioned under the Offspring headline. Also the information under the Personal Life section is very lacking. There is very little information on his relationship with Hephaestion, and also no specific information on his marriages. I realize that I need to locate specific examples from text sources, but I have not made it that far into my research yet. Would anyone be interested in making these adjustments to the article or helping me figure out how? I don't believe I have the permission to do so, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Thanks! 67.159.82.199 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs a researcher, particularly these pages on Macedonian empire and Alexander III. I will help you with the first steps, although I am not an expert in using Wikipedia. You must read the instructions which you get from the menu: the framed text on the left on the main page. But technically, just for the start:

1. Register first. So, go to the right corner where you see words Log In / create account. Click on “create account” and you will be guided to introduce your “name” and “password”. The name must be pseudonym, so not your real name.

2. Now you can intervene under your “pseudonym”.

3. If you want to change something click on “edit” (right corner of the beginning of the text). You will get the window where you can write. Write a new paragraph and sign it typing 4 times the sign ~, like this Draganparis (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC). We call it diese, I do not know what is English name for this.

4. Then through “save preview”, verify it, correct it (you must find that command below your text-frame).

5. Repeat “save preview”, verify it, correct it.

6. Then if you are sure, just “save”. This will appear on the page, and the other will be able to see in the “history” mode what you did and how this was previously.

If you THEN will see some of YOUR mistakes, you may correct them through the same “edit” procedure. Your new and old corrections will be visible again for the others in “history” mode.

Log in always before correcting something.

DO NOT introduce your opinion, just recognised facts!!! For examples: Alexander's relation to Hephaestion is considered today trivial and you will need strong ground (references) to show importance of it - if there was one. Or: Were Parisatis, Statire, Barsine and Roxane Alexander's legitimate wives? You need to document their status, and it is not so obvious. Therefore, if you would change something, put RELIABLE and accessible FULL references and citations. Just a reference may not be enough since often what people say that IS IN the reference, is in fact NOT there! Above example of "Eigthman" is an example of a BAD EXAMPLE. "Eigthman" may be right, but did not show that he/she is right (no citation, no references). And THEN! You will have to stant the reactions of the other often pseudo-historians. Not an easy matter. Good luck. Draganparis (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)