Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 2

Wars of the Successors, etc.
''I removed this section because it didn't seem appropriate for an encylcopedia article about Alexander to cover the dissolution of his empire in such depth and so far in time (to 250 BC and beyond), particularly when there is a fine article on the [Diadochi]. This would be equivalent to ending an entry on Lenin by giving a history of the Soviet Union from his death to the fall of Communism in Europe--it's related, but not really appropriate. I put the text here so we can talk about it, and perhaps rescue pieces for here or there. I'm not going to fight a revert war over this. But I will revert if the reverter doesn't give a defense in the change description, or, preferably, here.'' [Lectiodifficilior; can't remember how to add that automatically] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs).


 * Well, Alexander's legacy helps better understand the scope and the consequences of his actions during his brief lifetime. In a sense, his legacy defines the true meaning of his life. However, to you point, I think there's no meaning in going into the details of the Diadochi War. A "Main article:Diadochi" link should help.


 * Historically, the Hellenistic period (3rd-1st century BCE) is considered as the period of history directly affected by Alexander's conquests. It brought radical political and cultural changes to three continents as a direct consequence of Alexander's actions. That part is probably necessary, but maybe we should try to simplify and structure it. PHG 08:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here goes:

Legacy and division of the Empire
Alexander left a huge empire to his successors who fought for supremacy over portions of his realm. When the dust settled, virtually all of his officers had disposed of their Persian wives, and all but two of his top officers, his mother, his wife Roxana, his son Alexander IV (323-309 BC), his illegitimate son Heracles (327-309 BC), his sister Cleopatra, his half-sister Euridice, and his half-brother Philip III of Macedon, were dead. Only one of them, Antipater, died of natural causes.

Soon after Alexander's death, his soldiers elected his infant son, Alexander, and half-brother, Phillip, to be the successor kings. But young Alexander was just a baby and Phillip suffered from a mental infirmity. Under the circumstances the great commanders of Alexander's army, the diadochi, elected one of their own, Perdiccas, to be regent and chiliarchos. A soldiers assembly formally accepted him and thus Perdiccas was set to rule the empire until Alexander IV reached maturity. However, in the very next year, 322, Perdiccas fell into a conflict with Ptolemy Soter ("the saviour"), one of the diadochoi and current satrap of Egypt. The regent took his army to Egypt in order to punish Ptolemy, but during the event he was killed.

Conflict of the Diadochi
The diadochoi met once again and chose Antipater to be the next regent. But now Eumenes, former secretary of both Alexander and Perdiccas, didn't accept this decision and started a rebellion against the diadochoi. The empire fell into civil war. One of the diadochoi, Antigonus I Monophthalmus (literally "One-eyed"), satrap of Lydia, was able to stop Eumenes. At first, in 317 BC, he tried to defeat Eumenes directly at the Battle of Paraitacene in central Persia, but failed. Eventually, Antigonus had to bribe Eumenes' own soldiers to assassinate him. By this Antigonus was now the most powerful of all the diadochoi.

Meanwhile, back in Macedonia Antipater had died, but not before nominating Polyperchon as the next regent. Antipater's son, Cassander, didn't accept this state of affairs and started a new war (319 BC). During this turmoil, in 317, Olympias tried to dominate Macedonia and Greece and become regent as caretaker of her grandson, Alexander IV. She also ordered the death of Phillip III. Her plan didn't last long. In 316 Cassander conquered Macedonia and sentenced Oympias to death. Now he was the regent.

Antigonus regarded himself as just having been one-upped and now fought against Cassander. The rest of the diadochoi worried that powerful Antigonus would defeat them all one after another, so they formed with Cassander a coalition against him in 315 BC. In 312 Ptolemy conquered Cyprus while Seleucus took Babylon, Elam and Media, where he defeated Antigonus' satraps. Then in 309 Cassander finally disposed of Alexander IV. The boy was by now thirteen years old and the following year he could legitimately rule according to Macedonian law. His mother Roxana was also killed. Cassander kept this all a secret for the next several years, until 305 BC. In the meantime Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander signed a treaty of peace with Antigonos leaving Seleucus alone to fight with him. Seleucus nevertheless managed to defeat Antigonus and conquer eastern Iran. Then in 305-304 BC all of the diadochoi finally learned of the death of Alexander IV and pronounced themselves as the successor kings, each to his own territory. Antigonus accepted none of these other proclamations and started a campaign to become sole ruler of the whole empire. Ultimately, he was defeated in the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. In the aftermath Lysimachus took Asia Minor, Seleucus took Syria and Ptolemy took Palestine.

Partition
So Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Greece, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus I Nicator ("the winner") in Mesopotamia and Iran, and Ptolemy I in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus I ruled for a while in Asia Minor and Syria, but was soon defeated by the other four generals. Control over Indian territory was short-lived, ending when Seleucus I was defeated by Chandragupta Maurya, the first Mauryan emperor.

Soon Lysimachus obtained Cassander's portion (285 BC), and the empire was divided into three major portions, controlled by the descendants of Ptolemy Soter in Egypt, Antigonus in Greece, and Seleucus in the Mideast. By about 281 BC, when Seleucus killed Lysimachus in the battle of Kurypedion, only two dynasties remained in Alexander's old empire &mdash; the Seleucid dynasty in the north and the Ptolemaic dynasty in the south.

After the battle of Kurypedion, Seleucus went to Macedonia and was killed by Ptolemaios Keraunos ("the thunder"), a son of Ptolemy I, who escaped from Alexandria. Keraunos became new king of Macedonia, but in 279 BC Macedonia and Greece were invaded by Celts and Keraunos was killed. In 277 BC Antigonus Gonatas, the grandson of Antigonus Monophthalmos, defeated the Celts in the battle of Lysimachia and gained control over Macedonia. The Antigonid dynasty ruled in Macedonia until the Romans conquered the country.

Around 250 BC, the eastern part of the Seleucid Empire seceded under the leadership of its satrap Diodotus, to form the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, which then expanded into India through the conquests of Demetrius, to form the Indo-Greek Kingdom from around 180 BC to 50 BC. The legacy of Alexander in the East was particularly long-lived, and through the development of Greco-Buddhism had an important influence on its arts and religions.

I just wanted to add some information
I'm a senior in Highschool and I did a research project on Alexander and I just wanted to add some information to the site.

Alexander’s army was one of the first to successfully use siege weapons. His father, Philip did have siege material but never figured out how to utilize his new powerful weapon. After his father’s death Alexander had to squelch revolts from neighboring city/states during his first months as king. He had to deal with the city-state Thebes. When he arrived at Thebes, he gave them a chance to surrender but they refused, so he used his siege weapons to attack the city’s walls. The weapon he used is called a catapult. The catapult is a machine, which throws huge rocks. This weapon is very useful for destroying walls and buildings. They also had a weapon that launched huge arrows. Both of these siege weapons used torsion to launch their ammo (Fox 104-105). Alexander’s army also had many other dimensions to it such as a great Calvary. The Calvary was considered the heart of Alexander’s army. The well-trained Calvary was an important factor, which helped turn the battle in Alexander’s favor. His Calvary was made up of two types or units. The first had long spears, which were used to pierce enemy ranks. The second were units that carried long two-handed swords. These units had to be well trained because these riders did not have stirrups yet (Fox 108-111). His army also consisted of spearmen that carried weapons that were thirteen feet long (“The Real” n.p.). These spearmen were very effective against Calvary and charging footmen. These soldiers were trained to wave their spears up and down while charging, this helped deflect any arrows that were shot in their direction. This type of infantry was very competent in the open battlefield but had trouble turning their ranks in battle. They also had difficulty maneuvering in certain terrains. Unfortunately for Alexander these weapons had many constraints on them and could only excel in certain conditions. His army also had archers and slingers that helped Alexander with his long-range attack. These troops proved to be very useful against the Persian archers. One of the more effective infantries he had were the shield bearers. These men carried shields as well as swords. This type of infantry was useful to Alexander he kept these men on the far left and right ranks of his men just in case of ambush. If he was flanked by his enemies he had men who were well armed and protected to defend the interior. Alexander also had certain units that could be compared to America’s Special Forces unit. These men were called Gurkhas and they carried javelins. Alexander used Gurkhas for rough climbs and night attacks. During this time period no other army had such diversity. Alexander was well known for his skill in balancing armies (Fox 108-111). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spencsoc23 (talk • contribs).


 * Where did you get the Gurkha idea? I suspect you got it here—a previous version of Alexander the Great included that (very silly) notion. See Gurkhas. Apparently someone misunderstood a reference in a secondary source, comparing some unit of Alexander's army to the Gurkhas. Alexander no more had Gurkhas in his army than he had the French Foreign Legion. Lectiodifficilior 21:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) — incidentally, if you want to add something, go ahead and add it. If there are any problems with it—eg., Gurkhas—they will get edited in time. Lectiodifficilior 21:19, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

Work Cited:

Fox, Robin L. The Search for Alexander. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980. Carpenter, Betsy. “Alexander’s New Look.” U.S. News & World Report Nov. 2004: p.73.Expanded Academic ASAP The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark Dec. 19 Nov. 2004. http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Cartledge, Paul. “Alexander the Great: Hunting for a New Past?” History Today July 2004: p.10. Student Edition The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark DE. Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

“The Real Alexander: The True story behind History’s First Conqueror.” Current Events Oct. 29              2004: pss1. Student Edition The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark DE. 17 Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Black, F.M. “Alexander’s city of Dreams.” Calliope Oct. 2001: p.4. Student Edition The Gale       Group. Newark High School Library, 17 Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com. Leeming, Matthew S. “Wadding Through Blood To Glory.” The Spectrum Ltd. 25 Sept. 2004: p.   54 Expanded Academic ASAP The Gale Group. Newark High School Library Newark DE. 17  Nov. 2004 http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencsoc23 (talk • contribs) 16:45, January 12, 2005 (UTC)

How true is this?
How true is this? "(present day India not part of conquests - Northern India also misleading as conquests only extended to parts of Punjab (reference maps)". Where are those reference maps? Are there any other resources where we can validate this? dionyziz 14:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Strategies
I believe the article should have a section discussing the strategies Alexander used in battles. I might try and add some info about it soon.--Kross 06:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

^^^^^^ Go to Yellow Pages India and count all the Greek derived names. Do the same from England to India, Russia to Africa and you start to get the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 15:32, June 5, 2005 (UTC)

Greek name relevant, but not Macedonian
Regardless of anyone's positions on the Greek/Macedonian controversy, deleting the Greek name and inserting the Macedonian name for "Alexander the Great" is not useful. No ancient text in the Macedonian language is known, none referring to Alexander; and the modern Macedonian phrase is of Slavic etymology, postdating Alexander by a thousand years: i.e., not a phrase anyone would have said in Antiquity. All the ancient historical documents refer to him in either Greek or Latin (later: Persian, Arabic, etc. &#8212; still no Macedonian), making it useful to have the man's name in Greek, the language he and his entourage spoke, but not in Macedonian. A Macedonian equivalent is theoretically useful in an English article, but only as useful as remarking that it's "Alessandro Magno" in Italian. &#8212; Bill 23:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently spurious reference to Quintus Curtius
A previous edit inserted two references to the ancient Macedonian language: one valid, to Plutarch's Life of Alexander, and one that to me at least appears spurious, to "Curtius, VI.9.37", which I therefore removed. A quick examination of the text of Curtius shows that Book VI Chapter 9 ends in section 36; a somewhat slower trawl thru all of Book VI has me not finding any reference to the Macedonian language being incomprehensible to Greeks. That doesn't mean Curtius didn't write such a thing (sorry if it's there but I have just been unable to find it) but the burden is on the editor to provide a valid citation. &#8212; Bill 23:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References to Fox
There are two references in the article to "Fox 108-111". Are these referring to "Fox, Robin L. The Search for Alexander. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980" which is referenced in "medizing" in the discussion area. If so, the book should be listed in the article. If not, what do they refer to? Gedanken

Was Alexander Greek?
This question keeps coming up not least because it has relevance to certain modern nationalist debates. It was however a live debate at the time but posed in a very different way in that at the time it was  those Greeks who opposed the Philip and Alexander hegomony who disputed their Greekness. The relavance to this article is that a lot of the opposition to Alexander-Philip was framed in a discourse that the Macedonians were aliens. On the other hand Philip and Alexander were very keen to define themselves as Greek. The conquerer adopting the culture of the conquered was very much par for the course in the pre-print world and see we Alexander doing same thing when he tried to make Persians out of Macedonians. What is striking to me is not the opposition but the extent that the Macedonians were ready go along with it.

It seems to be that the whole Greekness question needs a wider coverage but it should really be part of the Philip article with a link back on the lines of how 'the belief that the Macedonians were non Greek was a key aspect of Greek opposition to Macedonian hegemony'.Dejvid 13:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hegemony vs. Unification
Hi. Can we talk about the Alexander the Great edit? I'm very surprised to find my edit being called biased. I can't stand the usual bias that creeps into the article, most of it based on modern ethnic politics, and don't think this qualifies. The question is: is it accurate to say that Philip “unified” Greece, or is it better to say he brought it under Macedonian hegemony.

I think "unified" gives rather the wrong impression. First, there was no "unified" government of any sort. When Germany or Italy "unified"--and much of the unification language about Philip looks to these great 19th c. unifications--they became unitary states, with common laws, political structures, etc. Nothing of the sort happened under Philip. That sort of political unification had no precedent in Greek history and was not attempted at this time. The closest precedent for Philip's situation is the Athenian empire after it became clear that states could not voluntarily leave it. In Philip's case, most states also entered it involuntarily, which I think it another critical difference between "unification" and "hegemony." Philip's hegemony over Greece was an explicitly military one, won on the battlefield of Chaeronea, maintained through garrisons within the walls of the major Greek states, and which collapsed at his death only to be remade (again on the battlefield) by his son.

Ultimately, a perfect description would include all these details. It might also touch upon the benefits that Macedonian hegemony brought, the great "fatigue" of the Greek states of the 4th century, sentiments of a common "Greekness," at least in so far some thought Greek states should give off fighting each other and fight the Persians instead, etc. etc. But in the short space we have, I think some sort of neutral term like "hegemony" is best. I've toyed with and rejected "forced unification," "Macedonian control," "overlordship," etc.

Oh, I think we also need to retain the sense that Philip brought *most* of the Greek states under his suzerainty. First, there's Sparta, which though a broken reed in the 4th century, still maintained an implacable independence. Even without them, you're leaving out the Greek states of Asia Minor, Sicily, etc.

Comments? If none, I'm going to revert or rewrite. User:Lectiodifficilior 18:01, April 3, 2005 (UTC)

On the three ethnically-based changes
(from description of changes)

Three exclusively ethnic edits, including addition of favoring sources and removal of non-favoring sources. I find this unacceptable. Can we add a short section the issue and keep it out of the the article?

I am not of the opinion that the ancient Macedonians were "racially" distict from other Greeks in any meaningful way, or spoke a very different tongue--certainly not a Slavic one. But the degree of "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians was something Antiquity argued over. They saw cultural differences, and differences of speech, and sources from every period use Macedonian and Greek as terms which could oppose each other. To avoid this common usage is to efface something genuinely ancient in the interest of political advantage.

More broadly, I don't think we should be using Wikipedia to score our narrow little ethnic points. I would not approve of someone going into articles about Palestinians and adding "Arab" in front of the word "Palestinian" everywhere. For, although the Palestinians ARE Arabs, calling them Arabs over and over again is a well-known tactic for denying that they can have an additional or sub-identity anyone is entitled to respect. The situation is much the same here. Adding "Greek," "Greek," "Greek" everywhere is an effort to score points against the current country of Macedonia and its people. It is a very childish and obvious thing to do, like a child putting a lollypop up his nose to spite his parents. The child proves his point—lollypops can indeed fit up a nose—but the activity is nevertheless to be discouraged by adults. Lectiodifficilior 03:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just weighing in here on a subject I know little about, but surely the best thing to do is to write a section for the article headed 'Alexander's nationality' or something like that, and explain both sides of the question there. Clearly the question of whether Alexander was Macedonian or Greek was a controversial one in his own time as well as in ours. If this issue was actually explained somewhere near the beginning of the article, casual readers would be less likely to be misled by the occasional additions of Greek or Macedonian-biased editors, which are probably inevitable. The Singing Badger 14:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. (Indeed, I think I suggested it.) But let's just note, you wouldn't find that in a "real" enyclopedia. As an alternate how about a totally new page devoted to the "Ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians"? I'd rather get the topic off the page and onto somewhere else—although that page would swiftly degenerate into name-calling—than keep revisiting some compromise wording on this page. After all, we could have this argument on every single ancient Macedonian's wikipedia page. There are hundreds of such pages on Wikipedia! I understand there's some debate about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Japanese. I know, let's fight it out on the Seiji Ozawa page! Lectiodifficilior 06:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * the discussion should be restricted to Talk:Macedon as much as possible. We say on Macedon that it was a (literally) borderline case of 'Hellenic'. It may be said without doubt, otoh, that Alexander spread "Hellenic" rule etc., since by the 4th century, Macedon was almost completely Hellenized itself. Macedon in 550 BC may not have been "Hellenic" by any definition, but its upper class (which is what counts for the 'spread of Hellenism') was entirely so by 350 BC. dab (&#5839;) 11:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that a 'real' encyclopedia wouldn't discuss this; I think a m,odern one probably would, perhaps when discussing Alexander's modern legacy. I also disagree that the discussion should be restricted to other pages. Alexander is the most famous Greek-Macedonian (or whatever!) and this page will thus always be a target for pro-Greek bigots and pro-Macedonian bigots to try to promote their agendas. It's much better to explain the controversy openly on the page, as it would at least mean that the bigots would concentrate on one section. This has worked in the past. I myself wrote a 3-sentence section entitled 'Alexander's sexuality' a few months ago in order to concentrate the endless edit wars over whether Ax was gay or not. Now the section has been expanded by others into a long and NPOV examination of the subject and there have been less annoying edits to the main article. I believe a section on 'Alexander's ethnicity', perhaps with a link to a longer article on Macedonian ethnicity, might well solve the current problem. Unless there is a strong disagreement, I will be happy to start the ball rolling, although I've no expertise in the area. The Singing Badger 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, Badger, you've convinced me. I like to avoid playing with fire, but your sexuality example looks like a good one to follow. I'm going to revert the latest ethnic reversion and add a section referencing Macedon and Talk:Macedon. I'm leaving it raw; first, I don't want to write it (as I said); second, I don't think I should be trusted to write it. Let's see how that goes. Lectiodifficilior 08:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I wrote something. But I don't know my Aristotle from my Euboea, so it's going to need some checking by the wiser. The Singing Badger 16:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A separate section is probably the best but it is not just a modern debate. The anti Macedon party in Greece as vehemently denied his Greekness as the supporters of Macedon were to say they were.  In the ancient world it was Greeks who were foremost in rejecting the idea that he was Greek but they often focused on things that the modern debate ignores.    It is different from the sexuality question because no one really cared much about that but whether the Macedonians were Greek is relevant to the politics of the time.  It explains why the the Greeks took every chance to rebel and why the Greeks held so few high up positions under Alexander.Dejvid 19:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this web page has been created by prejudiced individuals
'''Obviously this web page has been created by prejudiced individuals that seem to ignore facts on purpose. Alexander was Hellene, Greek from Macedonia, period. The adjective Macedonian is used similarly to Athenian, Ionian, and Spartan etc. You choose to exclude Herodotus and you include quotes from Demosthenes an adversary of Macedonians that in fact criticized their different political system. I am sick of this propaganda from the Slavs that seems to be quite welcomed by a bunch of ignorant individuals for different reasons. In particular the ethnicity part is a joke.'''

Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by the Slavs for expansionistic reasons.

What Alexander said about himself?

"For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably." (Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb]) "Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know." (Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 99,3 (Loeb, C F Smith)

"But Alexander (I), proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek; so he contended in the furlong race and ran a dead heat for first place." (Herod. V, 22, 2)

After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: "Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.

The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45)

Ethnicity: Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

"The Macedonian people and their kings were of Greek stock, as their traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify." ` {John Bagnell Bury, "A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great", 2nd ed.(1913)

"Clearly, the language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek" {Prof. John C. Roumans Professor Emeritus of Classics Wisconsin University}

"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks." (Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Necono (talk • contribs) 04:33, April 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the ancient Macedonians spoke a language in the Hellenic family. My understanding was that it was probably different enough from Attic or Doric as to be mutually incomprehensible, but the evidence is of course rather sparse.  At any rate, I find the theoretical claims of Slavic Macedonians utterly incomprehensible in this - whatever Alexander may have been, he certainly was not a Slav. john k 04:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Alexander

Some questions for unbiased reasearchers?

- Aristotle desbite being an intelectual,had the narrow precept that non-Greeks should be treated as slaves. Would a non Greek trust the education of his son to a Greek nationalist?

- Why Macedonians participated in the Olympic games if they were a diferrent race?

- Why they spread the Hellenic culture and not their own indigenous one (if they were a different race)?

- Mount Olympos is in Macedonia, would the Greeks place the land of their ancestors in a non associated nation?

- The Greek mythology shows account of the relation that existed among all Greek tribes including Macedonians as they were all offsprings of Deukalion and Phyrra

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Necono (talk • contribs) 05:38, April 24, 2005 (UTC)

And now for some Iranian edits
I'm really tired of these ethnic edits. If it's not a spate of edits designed to add "Greek" everywhere and twit current residents of the Republic of Macedonian it's a spate of pro-Persian edits. Some notes:


 * Roxane was Bactrian or Sogdian, not Persian per se.
 * India was a historical part of the Persian empire—this was one justification put forward for Alexander's conquests—but at the time of Darius III it was not under their control.
 * In many ways, Alexander did follow Persian precedent and model himself or was modeled by others after Cyrus, but these edits come in on a raft of ethnic changes.

I'm tired of edits intended to promote one or another nation's claim to Alexander and safeguard him against contenders.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs) 04:04, April 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh Please!
To "Lectiodifficilior", who vandalized all corrections I entered in this article:

I am sorry about your "difficulty" with Iranians and other "ethnic" people as you put it. Please keep your emotions out of Wikipedia, or take your ideas to www.STORMFRONT.org. The edits I made are not "Iranian" as you suggested. Your problem is that you have not read a book or listened to a lecture on Alexander at a WESTERN (American, or European) university. The information I am about to repost is widely accepted by both sides of the debate and that's why it was entered here, as a correction to the existing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, April 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: First. I am quite sure I have better formal education than you do on this topic. Why don't we agree to make that the winning condition? I'd be quite glad to pony up my university and graduate school records against yours. Or why don't we get someone to give us both translation exercises in Greek and Latin? Ever, say, lectured on the topic, or delivered a talk at an academic conference? I will gladly concede your right to call me a racist if you allow any of these conditions to be tested by a neutral third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to vandalize this article again if you have sources that counter the established facts I have entered (aside from www.stormfront.org or something you saw in a hollywood movie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, April 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: I'm sorry to have been away for two days. I will be glad to continue removing your edits for as long as it takes to get a neutral party to look at our disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

By the way you seem to be illiterate:


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: Do you think these insults will help your case in arbitration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

-The correction I made to Roxana was to the linguistic origin of the name. ROSHANAK IS A PERSIAN WORD AND THE LANGUAGE OF BOTH BACTRIA AND MODERN AFGHANISTAN IS ALSO PREDOMINENTLY PERSIAN. Bactrian and Persian were also largely synonymous in ancient times, and even today to some extent. AGAIN PLEASE DON'T TOUCH THINGS YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, April 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: Bactrian and Sogdian were Iranian languages, like Persian, but they were not "synonymous." The modern languages of the region—are you seriously going to use this as your evidence for the 330s BC? Some sources. Again,


 * 1. http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html — Source: Professor Nicholas Sims-Williams of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London"; Quote:


 * "Bactrian, the ancient language of Bactria in northern Afghanistan, is unique among the Iranian languages in being written by means of the Greek alphabet --- a legacy of the conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in the 4th cent. B.C. From this period onwards theGreek language, written in the Greek script, was for a long time the exclusive language of culture and administration in Bactria. When Bactria was overrun by nomadic peoples from the north, its new rulers, the Kushans, at first continued the use of the Greek language for administrative purposes, but soon they came to use the Greek script to write the local language, Bactrian. A crucial moment in the history of this language was the decision of the Kushan ruler Kanishka to adopt Bactrian as the language of his coinage. After the first issues of Kanishka, Greek disappears from the coinage once and for all, to be replaced by Bactrian.
 * "During the first centuries of the Christian era, Bactrian could legitimately have been ranked amongst the world's most important languages. As the language of the Kushan kings, Bactrian must have been widely known throughout a great empire, in Afghanistan, Northern India and part of Central Asia. Even after the collapse of the Kushan empire, Bactrian continued in use for at least six centuries, as is shown by the ninth-century inscriptions from the Tochi valley in Pakistan [Slide 1 9KB] and the remnants of Buddhist and Manichean manuscripts found as far away as the Turfan oasis in western China. (This slide, for instance [Slide 2 12KB], shows the unique fragment of a Bactrian text written in Manichean script, which forms part of the Turfan collection in Berlin.) The career of Bactrian as a language of culture thus lasted for close to a thousand years."


 * 2. Source: Encyclopedia Iranica http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f6/v7f659.html . Quote:


 * "By the Middle Iranian stage, when a larger number of distinct languages are attested, a classification into Western and Eastern Iranian becomes more meaningful. While Western Middle Iranian is represented by Middle Persian and Parthian, the chief Eastern Middle Iranian languages are Khotanese (with the closely related Tumshuqese), Sogdian, Chorasmian, and Bactrian, to which one may add the remnants of such languages as Sarmatian and Alanic (R. Bielmeier in Schmitt, pp. 236-45; cf. also Sims-Williams, ibid., pp. 165-67), together with the "Parnian" stratum in Parthian (Sims-Williams, ibid., p. 171) and reconstructed proto-forms of Eastern Iranian languages attested only in the modern period, e.g., "proto-Pashto."


 * Go ahead and Google up language trees, etc. Oh, and see J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989) pp. 15, 51, 53.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

-We refer to ancient places by their names at the time of the events; India is properly refered to as the Indus Valley in all articles discussing that region, and indeed geographically it is only Pakistan that we are talking about here, not the Indian subcontinent. PS: The Indus valley was a tribute bearing region to Persia at the time of Daris III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, April 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: What are we arguing about here? All we have to do is make the situation clear. When modern encyclopedia readers hear that Alexander conquered "India" they think something more expansive than was the case. The problem is a tension between the "India" of Antiquity, that of modernity up to 1948 and of post 1948. Any wording that gets the right impression across is fine with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

-The descriptions of Alexander's tactics and bahaviour as following that of the Acheamenids is sourced from American, Canadian and European universities and publications, so your suggestion that this is an ethnic guy with an ethnic name trying to push an agenda is invalid and highly inflamitory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, April 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Response from Lectiodifficilior: India was not a tribute-bearing region at the time of Darius III. Here are three passages from three of the standard histories—Fox, Green and Wilken. If you really want to dispute this, I will be glad to get your many more such quotes.


 * "So far, Alexander's ambitions had been easily understood. He had first conquered Darius, then claimed his empire, marching out to its north-east frontier but going to further. West Pakistan, which the ancient called India, had also been a part of the Persian empire, but the frontier which had once stretched into the Punjab had been lost for a hundred years, and if Alexander kneew this fact of Persian history it is doubtful whether it influenced his Indian plans. In India he would soon go beyong the Persians' boundaries where there was no longer an empire to be reclaimed." - Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (1973), p. 331


 * "Two centuries earlier, Cyrus the Great had created an 'Indian province' between Peshawar and the northern Punjab ... by the fourth century Persia had abandoned her Indian satrapies, and even while 'Hindush' was part of the empire it remained largely _terra incognita_, a region of myth and fable, like Medieval Cathay. … Alexander had several cogent motives for invading this mysterious wonderland. As self-proclaimed Great King, he meant to recover Cyrus' lost satrapies. …" - Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, (1991 edition), pp. 379-380


 * "Those scholars who hold the view that he never aimed at world empire at all, see in this resolve [ie. to go to India] nothing but the intention of personally taking possession of the Persian empire in its fullest extent, or of restoring the frontiers of the empire, as they had been under Darius I. But Alexander's proceedings in India are not thereby explained; for he never went far beyond these frontiers. Darius I had conquered the north-west corner only up to the Indus…" — Ulrich Wilken, Alexander the Great translated from the German by C. C.. Richards, (967) p. 173


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilio (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

Succession box
You guys need to include the thing at the bottom where it says who he was succeeded by and whp he proceeded. It was here I dont know why it was removed please put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.20.71 (talk • contribs) 22:03, April 28, 2005 (UTC)

Language of Alexander
If there is any serious claim about the language of Alexander the Great, or the dialect spoken in Macedonia at or before his time, being other than Greek, I offer to pay a ticket to any museum for a non-expert (but educated) speaker of this language and see if he/she can understand more scriptures from that place and period than a non-expert Greek as myself. See also Ancient Macedonian language. The comment that modern Greeks are not 100%, pure descendants of classic Greeks is correct but irrelevant. The fact that the population of Great Britain is different from what it was 3 or 4 centuries ago is not an argument for denying the "Britishness" of Shakespeare. Ulixes 19:52, April 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Macedonians spoke a language which was similar to Greek, certainly, and were seen by the Greeks as a related people. The Ancient Greeks were pretty divided, however, as to whether the Macedonians were actually Greeks, or merely a related people.  Of course, the Macedonians were not modern Macedonian Slavs, but I don't think anyone (except a few vandals) has argued that.  But it is just as problematic to describe him as a Greek, imo.  Certainly, as someone pointed out above, the terms "Greek" and "Macedonian" were often used exclusively of each other.  "Eumenes was a Greek, not a Macedonian," or whatever. john k 20:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. But the confusing part here is that the concept of nationality is relatively new, and at that time there was no common Greek identity. For example, in Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes", the Theban chorus sing that the Argean army is "alien-tongued" (this is a very accurate translation). Obviously this is a poetic exaggeration but it is not anything the Athenian audience would find too weird. A Theban was a foreigner to an Argean in the same sense that a Frenchman is a foreigner to a German since there is no common European identity although you can imagine it happening at some time in the future. Of course the inverse can also happen (for example the Nordic peoples differentiated relatively recently). I think that to draw (a very uncertain) line between Greeks and non-Greeks at that time, we should take into account language, religion, customs and so on, rather than, let's say, the politically heated speeches of Demosthenes. Very often it is stated that the Macedonians deliberatelly classified themselves to Greeks for political reasons, but it is understated that the opposite could also have hapenned i.e. non-Macedonians claiming that the Macedonians were not Greek to promote their interests. My position is that by criteria which have nothing to do with what other people thought of the Macedonians, they qualify as Greeks as much as Spartans or Cretans, at least from the time of Alexander I and on. Anyway I think that beyond any short-sighted nationalist or other prejudice, this discussion is interesting and useful (for events that took place so long ago) because it is similar to current issues, like who is European and who is not (and consequently where does the European integration stop), which have an impact to the real world. Ulixes 23:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)