Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 11

Alexander's Body
The last sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Alexander's Body" is a bit vague. Would abybody mind adding a bit of detail to it? Cloudbreath9 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians
Just a word of caution. According to the oficial position of the Former Yokoslavic republic of Macedonia the identity of ancient Macedonians was never questioned. FYROM oficials never argued on the history of ancient ,hellenistic, roman or byzantine Macedonia which of course is greek. Ancient Macedonian language was always treated correctly as another greek dialect along with ionic doric aeolian dialects and more precisely as a from of north doric greek. The macedonians are referred in the cosmogony of isiodus as one of the seven greek tribes of the greek nation. As such the FYROM oficials were always prudent never to humilate themselves by demonstrating some hilarious claims without any historical justification. FYROM is in fact an off spring of Tito s irridentitism against the greek lands of Macedon which constitutes the District of Macedonia in northern Greece. Modern Slavomacedonians ( the inhabitants of FYROM who confusingly came to be temporary known as Macedonians ) are in fact a group of people of Bulgarian and not of slavic origin who started developing a form of national identity within the 1940s -only 60 years ago. The slavomacedonian language ( which not very wisely came to be called simply macedonian language creating a confusion with the ancient greek dialect of the historical greek Macedonia) belongs in the same sub family of bulgarian languages. In fact shares 85 pct common words and 100 pct common structure with the Bulgarian language and only for reasons of international politics their language is accepted as a distict language belonging only to the same sub group as the Bulgarian language. Nonetheless the slavomacedonian shares nothing in common with any form of Greek making them completely allien to the ancient greek macedonian dialect. As for the following speculations presented in the site of BBC are simply some opinions from some people who are not exactly Rhodes scholars in Classics. It is neither an oficial BBC article or an Oxford publication. It is simply a free domain opinion not even signed by the author! What I would suggest is prudence when it comes to a such rigorous topic as Ancient and Medieval History. We shouldn t forget that a substantial number of the so called slavomacedonians are currently seeking dual nationality to Bulgaria in order to be enabled to work and travel in EU. And Bulgaria grant them their papers and passports with the inscription: " Bulgarian in origin"

=
According to the BBC The ancient Macedonians were an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally distinct nation http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3352286 Alexander the great1 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Disclaimer: Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click here. For any other comments, please start a Conversation above."


 * Also: "Edited by: Macedonian"


 * That said, see what BBC really thinks: Country Profile


 * Finally, no, we don't give a damn what the ancient Macedonians were. Here we are talking about a member of the Argead dynasty that ruled them. We're talking about a guy tutored in Greek by Aristotle, participating in the Olympic games, believing in the 12 gods, spreading Hellenism, and self-identifying as Greek for crying out loud. NikoSilver 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that because it was edited by a Macedonian it is not reliable? The BBC sees all of the articles on its own site. If it did not agree with it, it would have removed it. Alexander the great1 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Macedonian" is an anonymous user on the internet against overwhelming peer-reviewed academic consensus. Also, so as not to be confused, see here what "Macedonian" may mean: Macedonia (terminology). Please do not attempt again to put racist remarks in my mouth. NikoSilver 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexander participated in the Olympic games? I thought he was a barbarian? Alexander the great1 02:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His people and his dynasty did. You're right on that one, he didn't compete himself. "Barbarian" was a frequent pejorative epithet used by political opponents for many other Greeks. A fluent Greek speaker could not be labeled a "barbarian" literally at that time (check etymology in the link). NikoSilver 11:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever put the country profile in, it is linking to modern macedonia rather than the historical one. Is that intentional 172.214.109.252 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the infobox that lists Alexander's birthplace as Pella, Macedon, it is correctly linking to Macedon, the article about the ancient kingdom ruled by Philip, etc. Or did you mean something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The h2g2 article is so biased and misleading, it cannot actually be used as a reliable source. It actually presents ancient macedonia as the forefather of the Republic of Macedonia. This is historically monstruous, because the slavic peoples that form the Republic of Macedonia settled in that area several centuries after the decline of Alexander's empire. Actually the article is so manipulative that it nearly makes a case for the Greek arguments on the Macedonia naming dispute. Schizophonix 07:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whered he die then?
The article says in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II, but the article on Nebuchadrezzar II says he lived around 300 years too early for that.

Or was the palace always called the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II even after he died? 172.214.109.252 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great poisoned
Macedonia was the land of the greeks till 900AD when the slavic tribes settled there. Many "modern" macedonians (Bulgarians) are simply and unsuccessfully trying to re-write history. Alexander the Great was the Greek King of Macedon


 * You are a retarded, ignorant, sub-intelligent idiot, with know knowledge of history or logic. Macedonians were never Greek, Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King, how else can Macedonians be called Macedonians, when Alexander's empire was called Macedon. Its idiots like you that like to re-write history.

Gosh they don't teach you much in Bulgaria, woops I meant the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.


 * To the person who wrote the second (the reply) paragraph. You who call yourself Macedonian. No matter the subject, please refrain yourself from writing in this way. Even you can act respectfully against other people's opinion. Besides, if you believe that you are Macedonian, writing like this makes you only acting in disgrace to the very foundation of the ancient Macedonian civilization. Although not Greek myself, but scholar of Balkan history, I must admit that scholars throughout the ages, since the very time of Alexander, never regarded Alexander as anything else but part of the Hellenic civilization. To connect him with the slavic civilization - no matter what its status - is absurd. Usually, and you may forgive me if I am wrong, people lately claiming to be Macedonians but are not Greeks have a slavic origin. If so then, it is importnat to demark the fact that the southern slavic tribes who entered the area of ancient Macedonia at about 600 AD (at Byzantine time) does not make any of their decendants (you) decendants of the ancient Macedonians. It may not even make the currently Greek population in the southern part direct decendants because most of them made it back to Greece from Asia Minor after the exchange. But, from a historical and cultural point of view they are, not you, far more connected to the ancient Macedonians than you as their are part of Hellenic civilization and its continuation (no matter how Greece and Greeks are perceived today).


 * Meanwhile, your antihellenism - because what you are showing is antihellenism - I believe, is based on something else, and there perhaps you might have a point. During the exchange of population between the countries of Greece and Turkey, the Greek nation resettled Greeks from Minor Asia in the northern parts of Greece. That happened after the Greek-Turkish war. Some years before that however, more precisely in 1912 when Greece reconquered the northern parts including Salonica from the falling Ottoman Empire, Greece forced the removal of what at that time was referred to as Bulgarians. Some parts of this (not all however) population call themselves, especially after 1945, Macedonians. That you are angry against the Greek government of that time is understandable. Any forcefully conducted removal of population causes great suffering. Both the Greek and the Turkish population went through similarly rough removals and resettlements. But, that does not entitle you any connection what-so-ever to any claim of yours of you being decendant of Alexander III. It is beyond any reason. And reason is not only on one side. Always remember that if your story is completely black, there must be some white spots as well. Thus, your enemy's understanding of Alexander the Great, surely must have some white spots as well. Find them!


 * I think it is important to see the real causes behind your action, beyond any natinoalistic action, whether Greek or yours. Because, ultimately, this highly antagonistic stance that you and your fellow followers impose on history - besides on Greece and on your country - will only lead to one thing only: War - the fall of reason, the loss of humanity. Neither you want that, nor the other side I believe (besides some nationalists on both sides). I have been there personally myself, served in the Gulf War, and believe me, you don't want that! There is far more that connects you two people than what divides you. You lived with each other for almost 1600 years! And, according to my own understanding, after having visited the cities of Florina, Veria, Thessaloniki, Serres, Skopje, Bitola, Strumica and Ochrid (5 years!) to conduct interviews for my research and collect other kind of evidence, I did not come across any hostile understanding what-so-ever on both sides regarding each other. You are basically the same. You show equal affection to your relatives and to strangers and you share religion and basically the same culture on almost all points (instituions, festivals, food, dance, music etc.). The largest differences are your separate languages and perhaps political history of your countries. Show the world that it is possible for you to co-exist! (User:P.Dubois]] 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

It doesn't matter who is descending from Alexander the Great or not. Children of successful people have been born idiots numerous times, and children of total fools have grown to become successful. Now multiply that by 100 generations since Alexander's time, and you'll see how lame claiming descent is. Trying to increase your self-image by asserting you descend from someone who had a great self-image is for people who have no self-image of their own. That goes for my Greek compatriots, but it applies much more to third, totally unrelated people. NikoSilver 12:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Asian Minor Greeks, I don't get the argument for a simple additional reason: Greek Macedonia was incorporated to Greece in 1912, and the immigrants came in after 1921. These 9 years, Macedonia was undefended since the Greek army was on its Anatolian excursion. Where were the "Makedonski" throughout those nine whole years to defend their "lost fatherlands" from Greece? How could they have been a minority and not claim an "underpopulated by Greeks" province (without the "necessary Asian Greek influx", and with no army to defend it)? How did they manage to not even demonstrate their presence? NikoSilver 12:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

West Nile virus as cause of death?
West Nile Virus is listed as a possible cause of death, yet the page for West Nile Virus says "Studies of phylogenetic lineages have determined that WNV emerged as a distinct virus around 1000 years ago." One of these must be wrong. Infinitejpower 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The entire section needs to be sourced, and this claim especially (it's pretty outlandish), if it is to stay in. CaveatLectorTalk 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK well I found a source for the West Nile claim in the page history; at some point it must have been taken out for some reason. I read the source and it seemed credible enough to warrant listing West Nile as at least a possibility.Infinitejpower 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was taught just recently that Alexander was a homosexual, and during his stay in Babylon after marching his soldiers from -- Punjab? He told us India, so I'm not sure. He didn't go into detail about that -- through the desert to Babylon, his lover died, setting in a deep depression. It is to my understanding that the combination of depression, eight straight years of warfare, and the harsh climate of Babylon was what made him sick and he died. I'm a Western Civ student who looked this up for the fun of it, and I just had this lecture on Tuesday... So, I'm not saying everything is CORRECT, history is full of interpretaion and misinterpretation, but I just thought I'd put in the theory I learned.

As for the guy who wrote the bit about coexistence, I am humiliated for you. Have a bit of respect. People in different regions are taught different things. Just because you specialize in Balkan History doesn't mean you know every fact. Besides, I would think that human instinct would tell you to back off a little, but I guess it doesn't. 130.127.3.249 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Lisa, Sept. 27, 2007

Sarcophagus question
The so-called "Alexander Sarcophagus," discovered near Sidon and now in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, is now generally thought to be that of Abdylonymus, whom Hephaestion had appointed as the king of Sidon by Alexander's order.

. . . Only, the article about the sarcophagus says it probably isn't. Someone who knows more about the subject than I do needs to correlate the two articles. --Michael K. Smith 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The invasion of India
Alexander invaded India but not modern India, He invaded what was then India but what is now PAKISTAN. He never went beyond Pakistani Punjab and never entered the actual land that consists of India today.

Someone keeps changing back my edits on the title of the 'Invasion of India.'

Currently it says 'Invasion of India' and 'After India'

It should be 'Invasion of India (Present-day Pakistan)' and 'After India' can stay as it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs).

It is often said that Alexander did not invade beyond present day Pakistan because his Army felt homesick. It is also said that he defeated Porus, the Indian King but granted a pardon after defeat and made him an ally. I would like to question the validity of the above mentioned facts.

Why would not Alexander go beyond present day Pakistan and why would he make friends with Porus? Just to say to that he felt homesick, would be very childish. It would also be false to justify that he made freinds with Porus after defeating him. This just does not sounds right. This thought seems to be projected by a pro-western revisionist scholar.

This could be better explained by fact that Alexander was defeated by Porus and prevented him from going further into India.


 * Great! That means there is an Indian account of Alexander's invasion. Wonderful! I hadn't heard. Please point to it so we can read it. (You said westerners had revised it, as I recall). Student7 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference in the Bible
The references to Alexander in the Book of Daniel, although they do not use the name "Alexander", clearly refer to him. The question of whether or not Daniel was a prophet or historian is best left to the page on the Book of Daniel itself. Simply deleting all references to the Book of Daniel in this page (as has happened twice) appears to be little more than censorship. DrBEngineer 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arabia
Please correct me if I'm wrong,but before Alexander died did'nt he have plans set in place to invade and conquer Arabia?I don't say he was not planning to conquer Western Europe but is there any contemporary or near contemporary evidence for one or the other being his immediate aim?--Sandbagger 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) In the second paragrath the article says before his death Alexander had already made plans to also turn west and conquer europebut later in the article it states''It is claimed that Alexander wanted to overrun or integrate the Arabian peninsula, but this theory is widely disputed.It was assumed Alexander would turn westwards and attack carthage and italy had he conquered Arabia. ''The latter part of the article is full of disputed claims and assumptions,therefore should not the second paragraph keep to the same kind of doubt?--Sandbagger 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander’s sarcophagus
The article says:

“According to one legend, Alexander was preserved in a clay vessel full of honey (which can act as a preservative) and interred in a glass coffin. According to Aelian (Varia Historia 12.64), Ptolemy stole the body and brought it to Alexandria, where it was on display until Late Antiquity. It was here that Ptolemy IX, one of the last successors of Ptolemy I, replaced Alexander's sarcophagus with a glass one, and melted the original down in order to strike emergency gold issues of his coinage. The citizens of Alexandria were outraged at this and soon after Ptolemy IX was killed. Its current whereabouts are unknown.“

My question is: If Alexander’s sarcophagus was melted down and turned into emergency gold coins, how could its whereabouts be known? Seems like that sentence should be struck. Or is there something I don’t understand about it?

Jgmccue 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right,it makes no sense,I've taken it out.--Sandbagger 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent "Personal Life" statement
I reverted Bucephala's earlier sentence today because as it stands, it just is not notable. One could presumably say the same for many other figures in history as well, but that does not mean it needs to be in an encyclopedia article on them without further explanation as to why it is important. If this is indeed something central to Alexander or to his later legend (maybe it is the main theme for medieval stories about him or something), then I would be in favor of keeping it in, but only provided that there are additional references to those stories. But as it is, it reads as a tenuous opinion without anything to back it up. I see that it has been un-reverted; I will not revert any further, but I think it needs more support to stand as it is. Mlouns 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you need references, I'll provide them. But it is not true that that sentence can be applied to any historical figure. Alexander didn't rape his captives nor treated women in a rude way, as Plutarch mainly comments. This is obviously strange for a conqueror, who might well do what he wanted with them due to his position. Next time, remember to write "sources required" after a sentence you doubt of instead of deleting it. Oh, and by the way, the sentence wasn't written by me, I just put it back since I consider it to contain an important fact of Alexander's personality. Greetings --Bucephala 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry not to give more of an explanation for the revert -- I'll have to do that better next time, especially for a non-anon editor. Cheers! Mlouns 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, Mlouns, you were taking care of WP:NPV and I respect and admire that ;) I'll copy here the source that has probably inspired the sentence. The paragraph is from Plutarch's Moralia, book 2, about "the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great", section 6:

But as for the other Persian women, he was as much their superior in self-control as in valour he was superior to Persian men. For he looked at no woman against her will and those that he looked at he passed by more readily than those that he did not look at; and although he bore himself humanely toward all other persons, it was toward fair youth alone that he conducted himself haughtily. He would not listen to a single word in praise of the beauty of the wife of Darius, who was a very handsome woman; but when she died, he graced her funeral with such a royal pomp and bewailed her death so feelingly that his self-control was questioned amid his display of humanity, and his goodness incurred the charge of wrongdoing.

There are more sources that deal with Alexander's kind behavior towards his lovers, but in my opinion, Plutarch's the one that states it more clearly and that's why I used him. Hope this clarifies what the original writer meant by the questioned sentence. Greetings --Bucephala 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Moderation of Alexander
The moderation of Alexander and his courteous treatment of Darius' harem was a trope for hagiographers annd biographers, and furnished a subject for paintings. It more deserves mention here than the fact that OliverStone did not depict the battle of Issus. --Wetman 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How Alexander is great?
How Alexander is great?

The warlords were great at that time.But not now; no one call George W.Bush as George W.Bush the Great. He may be a good warrior, but not believable that a great ruler. If it was the foundation of Alexandria that he contributed a lot to spread of knowledge, then why Aristotle or Thales, such great thinkers are not called 'the Great'. It should be changed to Alexander of Macedonia. Alexander the Great is a title of racism. Since he has defeated a lot of kings of Asia it just want to show that he (a representative of Europeanism) is superior to all other people. It is immediate, because thousands and thousands of people trust Wikipedia and don't give them wrong information. --203.129.207.10 07:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Jayanthan

He was named "great" by people in his age it has nothing to do with europeans beeing superior or anything. The literral translation of his name (megas alexandros) is "the great protector of men". Consider it as a name not as a title. I think this should cover it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.4.20 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment about Alexander the Great being a pro-European term doesn't seem very well thought out. Was Alexander even European? "the Great" is just an historical title that makes it easier to keep track of a big pile of names. An analogy is that just because the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation called itself that doesn't mean it was actually holy, or Roman, or an empire. 99.233.27.82 02:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Jordan


 * What are you saying? Please, learn a little bit about Alexander before writing here, and besides, this is not a forum, so, if everyone agrees, I'm going to delete your comments, which have nothing to do with the article. Do you think that if Alexander were a racist, his first aim would have been mixing the Persian race with the Greek race? Have you read about the Susa weddings? You haven't, I suppose. You also seem to ignore that he maintained a profound relationship with Bagoas, and Darius' family. And he admired Persians for their noble personality. He was called "Magnus" (great) by the Romans because Alexander, at the age of 32, had conquered the known world without even losing a battle, because he is a military genius, and had all those qualities a Roman man had to have: courage, honor, and magnanimity, to name a few. Next time you feel like doing a stupid comparison such as "Alexander=Bush" (if only Bush had Alexander's intelligence...), stop, think and read. --Bucephala 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

'Ultimate comeback'
This article is very unencoyclopedic, although its fun to see the term 'Ultimate comeback' sounds like it was written by a teenager, the article is not written in a scholarly way. Also (I have nothing invested in this I believe today's Macedon and that of 2000 years ago are different, and am British) Alexander the Great was a Macedonian king, macedonians had a distinct kingdom and language, and were treated as a lesser race by Greeks (as they evidently are today, looking up the page). ALexander the Great was criticized as veing a barbarian because of his Macedonian origins, the fact that he wished to 'hellenise' the world was simply because he viewed Macedon and Greece as both subscribers to hellenistic culture, although they were seperate Kingdoms and he pretended nothing else.Rob.G.P.A 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, all the respectful scholars of the world (among them many British) agree that ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe of Doric decent. Very few are not still convinced! Their language is considered Doric Greek and even Eugene Borza suggests so in his book "Makedonika". All the archaeological discoveries agree that ancient Macedon was pure Greek. (Archaeological excavations conducted by Greek, French, and British archaeologists) Of course Alexander did not consider Macedon and the rest of the Greek states as part of the Hellenistic culture!!! Hellenistic culture (and era) was after Alexander and was the amalgamation of Greek culture and Asian (including Egupt) cultures. Seleukosa 10:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmhm the Royal family of Macedon considered themselves descendants of Heracles from Argos,Peloponnese and both his parents were met in an all exclusive Greek religious festival.Open a book Rob. Eagle of Pontus 08:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I need to explain ad nauseam that Macedonia was part of Greece? Besides, Rob, teach us how to write in an "scholarly" manner and give references to your statements (that is, references from reputed Alexandrists like R.L. Fox), because at least we have provided references in this "unencyclopedic" article. --Bucephala 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC) PS: Greece was not a kingdom and there were no frontiers then, or at least a clear organization as today PPS: Spartans were also called "barbarians" because they had an oligarchy and different customs, which is exactly what Demosthenes wanted to say with that word, not that Macedonia was a different country.

Ancient Greek instead of Modern forms?
As it is basically always the case in Wikipedia, ancient Greek names are mostly given their modern Greek forms. Wouldn't it be more consistent to indicate the correct, proper Ancient Greek names? Till now, I refrained on all occasions from correcting the forms given in every article I met, but I guess we could sometime treat the Greek topics the way Hebrew ones are treated — Lemon Blue 09:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which names are you talking about, exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The names are exactly the same in modern and in ancient Greek. (Actually the ancient form should be atonic and capital!!) So the article is correct by mentioning the name as "Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας", or ";Αλέξανδρος ο Μακεδών" as it doesn’t change from the ancient to modern form!. Note that Alexander was "signing" as "Αλέξανδρος ο Φιλίπου" “ Alexandros o Fillipou" (Alexander son of Phillip).(the famus inscription with the spoils at Acropolis) In the ancient word the name appears either "Megas Alexandros" or "Alexandros o Megas"(no need in my opinion to mention them all!) So I will correct the article to a proper form. Seleukosa 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

revert-resistant vandalism, or what?
greetings, I just clicked over to this page to check a fact, and noticed a bit of obvious vandalism--something to the effect that a fellow named Alex Lorenzo loves hairy men. I immediately hit "edit this page" to delete it, but noticed it was not there in the edit window. Figuring it had already been reverted, I went back to the article and refreshed it just to make sure--and it was still there. This cycle repeated itself several times...is something wrong in the system, or am I just up too late and seeing things?

he is a lil dicked baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.66.3 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Alexander the Great
I don't want to start a big issue here on his ethnicity, but lets get one thing straight: he was an ancient Macedonian, i'm sure we can all agree on that. Now, were the ancient Macedonians as a nation related to the Greeks or not? We all know this issue is a firey one. For those of you that are unaware of this disputed issue, a brief explanation of the dispute as well as a summary exploring the Greekness and non-Greekness of Macedonians could be found here Part1/Part2/Part3/Part4 by Dutch historian Jona Lendering. I don't want Wikipedia making any claims that Alexander the Great wasn't Greek or that he was, so I think a reference note which I included in the article solves the problem by making readers decide for themselves on this issue and making the article neutral and politics-free. -- Fatmanonthehorse (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The kingdom was throughly Hellenized by Alexander's father, and Alexander had a thoroughly Hellenic education. "Ethnicity" is for soccer-stadium historians. Wikipedia Talkpages are for improving the Wikipedia articles, not for soap-boxing. This thread can end right here. --Wetman (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the ancient Macedonians were ethnically Greek people is debated, but all the scolars agree that, if not Greeks from the beggining, they got Hellenised much before he comes to life. So, in any case Alexander was Greek. And more than anything else: Alexander self-identified as a Greek, so he will be listed as a Greek. If you have any doubt go and tell him. Don't waste wikipedia webspace. Truthmaniac15:54, 16 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac (talk • contribs)


 * There is some debate on that too, because the ancient Greeks never recognized the Macedonians' claim of trying to be Greek back then. But if you so strongly feel that he was Greek, than there is reason for readers to think he was Greek too after reading about the issue, so for the neutrality of the article lets leave it like this. Fatmanonthehorse (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder, Fatmanonthehorse, don't you understand that your advancement of such pseudoscience and fringe theories, only serves to demonstrate to the rest of the world that the Greeks may be right when they complain that your country uses "semantic confusion" to "monopolize" the name? Don't you understand that what you're doing actually helps the Greek position in the Macedonia naming dispute? How many different people from different ethnicities have to verify to you that Macedonians (ethnic group) ≠ Ancient Macedonians, and that their ruling Argead dynasty = Greeks no matter how close the Ancient Macedonian tribe was to the Ancient Greek one? How many academics? NikoSilver 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have been carried away on this topic, and apart from the dispute that many academics are having on this issue, you have introduced the Macedonian naming dispute in this discussion, something that I have been trying to avoid for obvious reasons. Anyway, when looking at academics, they never describe Alexander as a "Greek" king, he is always mentioned as "King of Macedonia" or as a "Macedonian king". But listen NikoSilver, where have I said in the article that Alexander wasn't Greek? I simply clarified that he was an ancient Macedonian, and that the origins of ancient Macedonians are disputed today(and not only because of the naming dispute, there are many historians who view the ancient Macedonians including Alexander, as non-Greeks who were hellenized and romanized during the coarse of history). Wouldn't you agree? Fatmanonthehorse (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Name one academic that has disputed Alexander's Greekness. (Not the Greekness of the Ancient Macedonians in general, just Alexander's). NikoSilver 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexander was born in the northern Greek kingdom of Macedonia in July 356 BC. Not Greek enough, Fatmanonthehorse??????? El Greco(talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, if we could have a contest for the "most referenced word in Wikipedia articles", I bet that would be the word "Greek" next to Alexander's name! I can imagine this being a (possibly productive?) great WP:POINT violation though, so I just stopped in only three. NikoSilver 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are "academics" in FYROM and recently some others on FYROM's payroll that dispute the matter. Scientifically it's just laughable, but we were laughing with the whole Macedonian issue 20 years ago and look where we are now.--   Avg     00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important to clarify facts and try to stick to reality. I will present two important evidences:

a. The statement of FYRO Macedonia's former president MR. Kiro Gligorov in the Toronto Star on March 15, 1992: "We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)."

b. The statement from the interview with the Ottawa Citizen of Gyordan Veselinov, FYRO Macedonia's Ambassador to Canada : "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian"

It is a huge mistake to try to link the macedonia name dispute issue with the greekness of ancient macedonia and the ethnicity of Alexander the Great. The most rigorous classic schools do not raise such issues, ancient Macedonia simply is accpeted as part of the greek history, and very recently attempts are pushing towards the direction of a compound name that will clarify this huge mess. The name negotiations are resumed this december with both NATO and EU refusing entry to FYROM (as this state is reffered to UN, NATO and EU) till the pending name issue resolved on a compound basis. Statements of the style " Alexander a macedonian King of Macedon" only contain the article turn it unhealthy and inconsistent with what the major schools of classics. The name dispute has its own page we discuss there about it. As for the name of FYROM in wikipedia I afraid I have to agree with wiki policy and remain ' Republic of Macedonia' till the name issue resolve permently. It is the current constitutional name of the state, although under dispute, and this is the way that wiki lists countries. At the same time as there are many countries including all international organisations that use the description FYROM its not a mistake at all for users of those countries to use what their own country accept as description. Thanks Italiotis (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

City name misspelled?
Google does not seem to return any relevant hits for "Bocephia" (or "Bucephia"), which the article claims to be a city named after Alexander's horse. Misspelled maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.162.177 (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Misspelling, it seems it's Bucephalus. El Greco(talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Bucephalus, Caesar makes refenrence to Alexanders horse when talking about his "Toes". Kaeso Dio (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Contest
Why is this article listed in "The Contest's" rticles for improve ment? Kaeso Dio (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an article about an important historical person that badly needs improvement. Beyond that, I can't say. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that it was a featured article but has lost that status. Kaeso Dio (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch of articles on that list, what makes this one stand out? El Greco(talk) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)