No edit summary |
|||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
Yes politics is irrelevant but you are making it relevant as you only want to add the Greece historic stand. This is making it political.[[User:Karabinier|Karabinier]] ([[User talk:Karabinier|talk]]) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
Yes politics is irrelevant but you are making it relevant as you only want to add the Greece historic stand. This is making it political.[[User:Karabinier|Karabinier]] ([[User talk:Karabinier|talk]]) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Remove this illogical material you added.It will be removed and you are also ignoring wiki rules and breaking them.The references say he was ancient Greek.And stop ignoring other users.[[User:Megistias|Megistias]] ([[User talk:Megistias|talk]]) 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
::Remove this illogical material you added.It will be removed and you are also ignoring wiki rules and breaking them.The references say he was ancient Greek.And stop ignoring other users.[[User:Megistias|Megistias]] ([[User talk:Megistias|talk]]) 12:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Karabinieri, please familiarize yourself with [[ARBMAC]] and [[WP:Consensus]]. Alos consider reading the relevant articles on [[Macedonians (ethnic group)]] and [[Macedonism]]. And stop edit warring before you are reported.[[User:Xenovatis|Xenovatis]] ([[User talk:Xenovatis|talk]]) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:50, 5 April 2008
Alexander the Great is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Third title to Alexander's name.
Besides Alexander III and Alexander the Great, Alexander the Accursed (which was a very common term that many of the citizens of his Persian and Indian empires used to refer to him)should be added to the main topic. Though you only hear Alexander the Great, Alexander the Condemned was all to common and not including it as one of his key "nick names" is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- A Google search on "Alexander the Condemned" returns nothing. But if you can find a good source for this, please do put it in. Mlouns (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- He probably means Alexander the Cursed or Alexander the Accursed and this is how the Zoroastrians used to call him. Some nationalist Iranians still do so today. -- Avg 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, Accursed is what I was looking for, I interpreted "condemned" from the same word. Considering Persia made up the largest portion of his Empire, you can imagine how common the word was. The invasion was one thing, but the burning of Persepolis didn't go over too well with the citizens either. BTW in terms of current use of the word, he's not just referred to as "Alexander the Accursed" by very nationalist citizens, he's also referred to by that name (or as just "Alexander") in History classes and other areas of debate regarding the topic in Iran. --Xeraxes
Iran demonizes Alexander as the evil westerner....Modern Politics ad nationalism more than objective history.The burning of Athens and the utter annihilation of Eretria among many other instances of butchery didn't go well with the Greeks as well...But today we don't adopt views such as those the Iranians do.Megistias (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Having lived in Iran for most of my life I would disagree with the demonizing comment. Alexander is still considered an amazing tactition there, but the burning of Persepolis was an unforgivable attack, considering the sheer grandeur of the city. And we're not here to take sides, the fact remains that "Alexander the Accursed" was a very common name for him as well, and it would still be biased if it wasn't considered one of his main "nick names". It's not a matter of taking the Iranians' sides, it's a matter of giving an unbiased view of this amazing leader's life. --Xeraxes
I know it just annoyed me!Pardon my rantMegistias (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- So are we in agreement on this? --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be mentioned, however not in the intro paragraph since it is not a name he's worldwide known for, but in the Fall or Persian empire paragraph.-- Avg 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- But he's known as Alexander the Great NOW, and in Europe and the Americas, it was a completely different story during his time, what he is known for NOW shouldn't be used to ignore what he was known for so commonly during his time. --Xeraxes
- Oh yea, and about the fall of the Persian Empire Paragraph, the name should be changed. Persian history consisted of multiple eras, Alexander's invasion only marks the end of the Achaemenid period (even though he declared himself an Achaemenid King). The Persian empire continued on after that. And "Alexander the Great" is what he is most known as NOW and in Europe and the Americas. --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Alexander was not necessarily known as "the Great" during his lifetime, but that title ("Megas") was commonly affixed to his name throughout the world shortly thereafter. By contrast, I would like to see the earliest usage of "accursed"--and even then, I would point that it was in no way as widespread as "the great". Phoebus Americanos (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC) ... It's so psychotic that "Persians" can hate Alexander the Great when Arabs who came later raped and destroyed anything and everything that was Persian and civilized in the land of the Persians. The saddest of all is that today Persians live under Arabic Islamic Laws [i don't say it, persians do] they have their supreme leader to be of Arab ancestry... their women are oppressed, raped and killed everyday, they BULLDOZE their ancient findings as "pagan" history... the true Persians say they will fight for their freedom while the arab persian iranians are greatly satisfied with the glory of islam in Iran... go figure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I used to live in Iran and have to say you've got the wrong idea. Though the government is corrupt and very messed up, it doesn't at all represent the public. People do know that the Arabs took a big dump on the Persian empire and dragged its economy to the ground with their idiotic Kings (that's why Persians don't really like Arabs). People are very much dissatisfied with Government and the younger generation has a very different attitude (Very western). People also take great pride in the glory of the Persian empire (but the government doesn't really care).
Also, your comment about the oppression of Woman is generally over-done. The woman are oppressed, but the oppression you described is more like Saudi Arabia then in Iran. In fact, compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran looks like the center of Woman's emancipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Dubious sentence
I removed this sentence: "Alexander passed through Judea and was deterred from destroying Jerusalem by a Jewish priest who showed him a 200 year old Biblical prophecy from Daniel 8:3-8 & 8:20-22. Alexander was so amazed by it that he decided to leave Jerusalem alone, and not do anything to it." The Book of Daniel is currently dated to 167-164 BC, so Alexander could not have seen it. Makerowner (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't:
- "Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC." That's from the Book of Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.213.206 (talk • contribs)
- The third paragraph of Book of Daniel states: "The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC, whereas most modern Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred." --Akhilleus (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed semi-protection template
The well-named DumbBOT has removed the semi-protection template from this article, publically announcing in the edit summary "removing a protection template from a non-protected page." In other words, "let the vandalism begin!" Check the page history following December 14 to see whether I was right or not. --Wetman (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Alexander's ethnicity, cont.
(unconstructive thread removed) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Fall of the Persian Empire?
The "Fall of the Persian Empire" paragraph name should be changed. Persian history consisted of multiple eras, Alexander's invasion only marks the end of the Achaemenid period (even though he declared himself an Achaemenid King). The Persian empire continued on after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason it shouldn't be changed? Because it was reverted back to it's old name again. --Xeraxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- So can I change it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeraxes (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dont get it.Is it so important to state Achaemenid or not?What do we do for Rome or the Chinese empire?Megistias (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well the name "Fall of the Persian Empire" makes it sound like his invasion marks the end of the entire Empire... But it clearly doesn't, the empire goes on for a long while after.
And what do you mean "source?", just look up Achaemenid Empire. --Xeraxes
religion?
what is his religion?--65.9.153.52 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Olympian godsMegistias (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
is there any acual prof, i am just qustining it because it would contradict higly with platos belife in a monotheistic god and alexander was a student of aristodal .--65.9.153.52 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was standard beliefs and philosophical beliefs would go with them.We ll never know his thoughts but he took part in all and any pagan rituals.He would have certainly had his teachers views in his mind.And it is Aristotle in English and Aristotelis in Greek.Megistias (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Alexander's Date of Birth
Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BCE. Someone should correct this (I don't know how to use this thing). The current dates suggest that he conquered the world before dying at age 13! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvankaam (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Alexander as Aristotle's pupil?
I think that the claim that Aristotle was Alexander's teacher is pure legend. The actual historical evidence is mighty slim. I suggest including something to that effect. For discussion on this see Ingemar During, _Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition, 1957, 284-8, and W. W. Tarn, _Alexander the Great_, vol. II, 1948, 399-449. When Aristotle went to Mieza, he was pretty much an unknown except for his father's occupational connection to Philip. Moreover, Aristotle never mentions Alexander anywhere, and Philip only once. And Alexander's supposed letters to Aristotle are all fakes.Garbopash (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is an overwhelming number of references attesting the opposite, even online, simply search for Alexander and Aristotle together in google scholar.-- Avg 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. You're right; there are an overwhelming number of "references" to the contrary. And that is precisely why I think it is important to change the wiki page (i.e. because they're all wrong). Many of those "references" are made on spurious historical grounds, and the rest of them are made on no grounds at all.Garbopash (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "When Aristotle went to Mieza, he was pretty much an unknown except for his father's occupational connection to Philip".He may have tutored them before acquiring fame.Megistias (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aristotle mentions the name Alexander 2 times in Epistulae,1 at De Mundo,3 times at Oeconomica,9 times at Rhetorica,52 times in Fragmenta varia and 3 times in Testimonia.From TLG Aristoteles et corpus Aristotelicum.Megistias (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a fact that Aristotle's position as Alexander's tutor is historically dubious. Please see my comment at Talk:Aristotle#Relationship_with_Alexander, which specifically addresses the views contained in the secondary works cited by Garbopash. Wareh (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Greek spelling
Alexander's name in Greek in the intro is missing the breathing marks, and the initial alpha in the second form is mistakenly written as ASCII 'A'. As a Classical Greek name, it should be:
Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας or Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος
It may also be worth mentioning that the name Ἀλέξανδρος means "defending men". [Liddell and Scott, A Lexicon - Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 1976]
72.83.107.199 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does it say Alexander is an ancient Greek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was a Macedonian!!!!!!!
Macedonia,at that time, was part of greater greece so therefor it was greece. anybody from macedonia in that period would be considered greek...dont mean to burst ur bubble if ur macedonian n ur lookin for a hero! sorry
Statue pic: POV-pushing by insinuation
User:Cukiger keeps inserting a picture of a statue of Alexander the Great from Prilep, fYROM. What is the point of this insertion? There are statues of Alexander all over the world, not to mention dozens in Greece. Are we to include every single one? The sole purpose of inserting an image in an article is to enhance the article's quality. Not only is this not the case here, but the image is entirely irrelevant. So what if there is a modern-day statue in some provincial town of a country that did not exist back then? It seems this image is deliberately inserted to imply a "connection" between fYROM and Alexander the Great. This is POV-pushing by insinuation. It does not enhance the article in any way and is unacceptable. Incidentally, I am now observing a pattern of users from fYROM inserting irrelevant images of artifacts and statues from fYROM into many articles related to the Ancient Macedonians (e.g. Vergina Sun, Philip of Macedon), for the very same reason. As they do not have any reliable sources to back up their fictitious "claim" (as their own historian Tseprekanov said), they try to do so by inserting these pointless images. I am removing the image and ask that it not be reinserted without a discussion. --Tsourkpk (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Picture AlexanderPrilepMacedonia.jpg
Why there should not be an image from a statue of Alexander the Great from his country Macedonia, but from a neighbouring country ((Greece))? It's absurd. By the way, Prilep is not a provincial town.Cukiger (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fyrom has little to do with being his "country".It was mostly thracian soil of the Paeonians meaning Paeonian country a thracian people.A tiny part of Fyrom belonged to the extended Macedonian kingdom.The statue also is all wrong .The greaves are imaginary and belong in a fantasy game the shield is wrong and Alexander wasn't a sarissophoros.Also that shield and Sarissa never went together.He was Ancient Greek not Thracian and certainly not Slavic.These are Resolved issues for 100's of pages here.Modern Fyrom has nothing to do with Alexander or ancient Macedonians other than the above mentioned elements.Megistias (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It has much to do, by being the successor state of his (ancient) Macedonia. If the region of Macedonia whould not have partitioned by its neighbouring countries Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in 1913, FYROM whould not own just a tiny part by the ancient Macedonian kingdom, but the whole region of Macedonia whould have become a country. Plus, it doesn't matter how much of today's Macedonia is part of the ancient Macedonian kingdom, but where the Ethnic Macedonians lived and were a majority. And they were in Aegaen, Vardar and in the Pirin part of Macedonia. So, if the neighbours had not partitioned Macedonia in 1913 they whould have establish a country not only owning the part of Macedonia belonging to the ancient kingdom, but also today's Vardar part or Republic of Macedonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukiger (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Start reading history by non-Greek historians. I am not nationalist, I have nothing but hatred for these people. I am only defending Macedonian history. Macedonians have not been Greek nor Slavic peoples, but simply Macedonians (although they have strong Slavic elements since the Slavic tribes settled in the most part of the Balkan Peninsula and mixed up with the ancient Macedonians and speak a mix of Ancient Macedonian and a Slavic language, they still call themeselves Macedonians). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cukiger (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was/is no such thing.Please read the archives.Also Ancient Macedonian was Hellenic Linguisticsand read some ancient texts as well.MITMegistias (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Before the 20th century, so-called ethnic Macedonians identified as Bulgarians. This is why the "Macedonoan" language is identical to Bulgarian (with minor dialectical differences). The "Macedonian" ethnicity was literally invented in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, and the Macedonian name was merely misappropriated. The notion that fYROM is the "successor state" to ancient Macedon and Alexander's "country" is truly laughable. And I suppose Prilep is some global metropolis of some kind? You also did not provide a concrete argument as to why the statue pic deserves to be inserted. "Why not" is not an answer. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Prilep picture is inappropriate, for the reasons given by Tsourkpk. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's inappropriate not because it comes from the Republic, but because it's ugly and irrelevant. The same goes for the equestrian statue in Thessaloniki, used currently in the "character" section. Same kind of aesthetic abomination. We have enough beautiful ancient depictions, we don't need modern nationalist pseudo-art, from whatever locality. Otherwise, make a section with its own gallery on "modern nationalist hero-worship", and then put them all in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- To make this perhaps clearer, I find the whole premise of this discussion, on both sides of it, that images should be evaluated on the criterion of which ethnic group is more entitled to make them, pretty unbearably silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind at all having a statue at fYRoM depicting Alexander (as long as it has an artistic merit). It would be kind of them to pay their respects to a famous Greek hero. Having seen it though, I must say I prefer (purely aesthetically) the Thessaloniki one, which also doesn't appear to have historical inconsistencies.-- Avg 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Macedonians did not meant to pay respect to a Greek hero, but for a Macedonian hero, which they regard as being one of their kind. Cukiger (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
About the destruction of Persepolis
I think that some details/citations are needed to explain as to why Alexander destroyed Persepolis.
The following paper by Eugene N. Borza, offers a scientific approach of what Alexander did during his stay in the city and and the conditions under which Alexander decided to destroy the city. Eugene N. Borza is his paper is proposing is a third "Machiavellian" reasoning as to why Persepolis needed to be looted and destroyed. -- A.Cython (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Double References
I am not very familiar with the rules of wikipedia about citation, but I noticed that references 31 and 37 are the same i.e. "Top Ten- Lives of the Greatest Monarchs of History" by Mohsin Ashraf
Is possible someone with the appropriate privileges merge these two references? -- A.Cython (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well if refs 31 and 37 are citing the same page, then yes they can be joined, but if they are citing two different pages, then it's better to leave them as is. El Greco(talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Protection status
What is the current reason for Alexander the Great's protected status? 68.229.184.37 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not fully protected, it is semi-protected and I think the General considerations apply.--Avg (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Using Before Christ and Anno Domini is ignorant to other religions
In several articles about ancient rulers I have seen B.C. and A.D. instead of B.C.E. and C.E. Not everyone is a Christian so I think we should stop using B.C. and A.D. in this article and all articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.95.236 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Using CE and BCE don't seem to change anything in terms of date. Also, BCE and CE are often set to mean "Before (the) Christian Era" and "Christian Era," it seems superfluous to change it. AD and BC seems the way to go.69.245.80.218 (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
About his death
I have read that he could have also died of syphilis. Does anyone have any references around? 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Adoptee?
This article is in [[Category:Adoptees]], but the section on Early Life sure doesn't make him sound like an adoptee... unless you are saying Phillip adopted him from Zeus?!? What am I missing? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That it has nothing to do with his early life. He was adopted by Ada of Caria c. 334 BC in order to become her heir. Dimadick (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
sources about alexander
I am here because i readed something interesting about greek editors in wikipedia in youtube.
If i bring here 10 sources testifying alexander the great was in part of albanian origin it can be cited in the article as a point of view of scholarship? I can't notice nothing wrong in what i written.
waiting answer. 87.2.236.36 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alexander
I suggest that Alexanders origin should be kept as "Macedonian and Greek" until its confirmed officially by both sides and recognized as 1 by the rest of world. This debate has no end and both siodes can bring up evidences and references in hundreds to claim and confirm that they are "right". As one editor said if he would find references saying he was an albania then it woukld add only 3rd dimension. Currently I see that the Greek editors are not opened for fair debate and desperately want to prove that the other side is wrong. I find similarities in the Russian foreign policy with this where Moscow tries to prove to the world that the Baltic states are a fascist states etc. This is pointless however as again both sides can prove 1 and 2 thing. Same problem with the "Alexander" and with many many other things. There fore the origin should be kept unknown or officially unknown or Macedonian and Greek - as both sides claim differently - that would solve it for some period until the both countries can find an agreement. Also wikipedia cant ignore the fact that there are 2 claims about his origin. If wikipedia would aknowlegde only 1 side - Greek - then wikipedia is not apolitical science article! Karabinier (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Politics are irrelevant.Familirize yourself with Wiki rules.The consensus is that Alexander and the Macedonians and he were ancient Greeks.Megistias (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no 2 sides or any side.Wiki acknowledges the references and they say he was ancient Greek and the Macedonians as well.What are you talking about? That he was Slav-speaking Bulgarian?!Megistias (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes politics is irrelevant but you are making it relevant as you only want to add the Greece historic stand. This is making it political.Karabinier (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Karabinieri, please familiarize yourself with ARBMAC and WP:Consensus. Alos consider reading the relevant articles on Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonism. And stop edit warring before you are reported.Xenovatis (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)