User talk:Unschool/Alexander the Great

Notes on GK1973's version
notes on first paragraph

-- added the Arabian peninsula invading plans to denote the military aspect of his life and how actively he sought to continue his campaigns in the future has he lived - added the reasons why his empire lasted such a short time (War of the Diadochi) and the emergence of the states of the Epigoni without much detail and cumbersome texts, removed them from the last paragraph.--
 * Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * I like the inclusion of the Arab invasion plans, as it shows that he had not grown complacent
 * I feel that this sentence: His empire became the prize of the War of the Diadochi, his most trusted Generals, which resulted in the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms of the Epigoni. has several problems. First of all, it's simply too long and, in this context, almost erudite.  The average reader will not know about the War(s) of the Diadochi by name, nor of the Epigoni, and as such it will distract them from what is the point of the sentence, which is that his empire did not survive him, it was almost immediately split up.  The sentence from my version, his empire was divided up amongst his generals comes closer to what we need because it gives the reader of the lead most of what he needs to know.  However, my version sucks because it makes it sound like they did it sitting around the dining room table while drinking tea and playing Yahtzee.  So how about something like this: Alexander's generals warred against one another after his death; Alexander's empire was torn apart and the strongest generals came to rule over its pieces.  Okay, the second problem with this is that GK places it in the wrong place.  The first paragraph is to be about defining who Alexander is and why he is notable.  This just doesn't fit here.


 * Actually, this is not historically correct. The Empire of Alexander was not "officially" split up. They kept Alexander's governmental organization and "officially" strived to keep unity and act as regents in place of Alexander IV. It was after the Wars of the Diadochi and of course the assassination of any legitimate heir (including Alexander's sons and mother), that the Empire was "officially" split into separate kingdoms, dominions etc, many more than 4 (do not forget the Greek city states and leagues, as well as many barbarians who regained their independence). Of course many Generals (maybe the mightiest ones) were killed in the process (like Craterus). I felt this information belonged in the first paragraph, but I will be content with it being related in the next ones, as long as no other info is written in the first paragraph regarding the fate of Alexander's empire. GK1973 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. Well, while it was not officially split up immediately, it was split in a de facto sense.  And while the actual dissolution was not immediate, if it was only two or three years later, that was virtually immediately, as viewed in the rear-view mirror of two millenia of subsequent history.  Besides, in the lead, details are minimized.  Un  sch  ool


 * Your point about it being more than four kingdoms is a significant one. I would like to know how MFBT selected that number.  I will try to rephrase it without such specificity.  Un  sch  ool

notes on second paragraph

''--changed the order of the first sentence to state what is important first and the means later. - He did not inherit the Generalship, he demanded and received it in Corinth. - There was no revolt at first and certainly no "general's" revolt, it was the rumors of his death that allowed Thebes and Athens to revolt. - Thebe's razing is, in my opinion important enough to state here in a few words as well as Alexander's regrets, a well established "fact", to give some insight on his character, or on his character as was perceived by the ancients.--''
 * Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * Assuming that your point about his demanding the Generalship is accurate (I am not an ancient Greek scholar, so I'm taking your word for it), then yes, it is very important that this wording be changed.
 * Again, I'm happily taking your word for it that the Thebian and Athenian revolts were the result of rumours of Alexander's death, and that is very different than revolting because he was a kid. I'm glad to see the record straight.  I am not yet content with the inclusion of so much description here; details need to really be important in the overall scheme to be included in the lead.  I can see that you recognize this, given the thoughtful explanation you've given for its inclusion.  The razing of Thebes is a big deal.  I'm going to think this one out a bit more.
 * Regarding the razing of Thebes, we have this sentence in your version: a decision Alexander would soon regret. I really don't like this, for a number of reasons.  First of all, it sounds like a cliché.  Secondly, there are different kinds of regret.  Generally, historically, when we speak of someone regretting a decision, it usually means because it backfires on them.  But sometimes people simply have emotional regrets, feeling bad about what they have done.  Your comment implies the latter, but if that is so, the trite wording (to me) belies the introspection implied.  And quite frankly, if it wasn't for your statement that it gives insight into his character, I would quickly strike this from the lead altogether.  That is my instinct still, but your explanation is somewhat persuasive.


 * All the ancient sources are unanimous in that Alexander treated any Thebans he would come across with favor and leniency after the razing of Thebes because of his regrets. We also have to keep in mind that it was his allies' decision to raze Thebes (according to the sources a payback for Thebes razing of Plataea some years earlier), in whose hands Alexander rested the fate of Thebes. Of course, he did nothing to stay their wrath, which surely implies silent approval. We can surely do without it but I feel that aspects of his character should be sparingly included in the lead. GK1973 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, as well as the clarification. I now understand the appeal that it has for you as a portion of the lead.  I agree that significant elements of his character belong in the lead.  Yet it seems that, to include the Thebian story in the lead would simply take up more text than is acceptable.  Can we make not of his character traits without telling the story?  The regret/compassion indicated by his treatment of Thebians after the razing?  His impetuousness/boldness in cutting the Gordian Knot?  I don't know how to treat this yet, but I'll try.  Un  sch  ool

notes on third paragraph

''--he had organized a working government based on the satrapy system of the Achaemendids. The problem was that he had no heir of ruling age, so a civil war was sadly inevitable... Yet, I think that this info is superfluous since the lead of this paragraph focuses on the cultural legacy of Alexander and the War of the Diadochi is mentioned (in my edits) in the first paragraph. - The next one is tougher.. Alexander was not just expecting his subjects to share. He actively sought to insert Greek cultural elements in the east (evident in the cities he founded, the temples, the orders he gave to school Persians in Greek manners and tongue etc) - not introduce, since Greek culture was introduced centuries ago (older discussion)- as well as make Greeks more tolerant of the "barbarians" (even against Aristoteles' teachings). Of course he respected and himself followed (when among Easterners) some cultural elements of the conquered peoples but did not try to impose them on his people. What he did try was to breed a new ruling caste with blood from both worlds (although it is also very interesting to know that he only chose the female genes to be eastern). Anyways, implying that he put equal weight on both aspects of the civilization he dreamt of is incorrect, as would be the case in implying that he only wished to impose Greek culture in the East. The comment about the displeasure he caused is also important, since it shows the innovation of his thinking, was the cause of plots against him, even the accusation which led to the death of Cleitus. The next two sentences are OK and surely stress this "merging" of cultural elements - Also men of lower status took part in these marriages and received generous gifts - I prefer the "features prominently" sentence we have today. --''
 * Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * Most of your comments are well taken. You are correct, of course, about Alexander wanting the cultural mixing to be a two-way street, and I'm embarassed that I failed to make that clear in my version.
 * And of course you are also correct that he wanted this to be more than just "sharing"

Okay, I'm going to attempt a new version taking into account your comments and version. Un sch  ool  14:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes on MFBT's version
First Paragraph
 * "A mere 13 years later" - thirteen years was not an insubstantial reign. It was Alexander's age at death, not his regnal period, which is notable.
 * Excellent point. Un  sch  ool


 * "Alexander's life marks the boundary between the Classical Age and the Hellenistic Period, making Alexander one of the most well-known figures of antiquity." - This is not why Alexander is well known.
 * Yeah, I was always uncomfortable with that sentence, which amounts to a meaningless juxtaposition. I think I was trying to include something about the demarcation between periods, and ended up with that poor sentence.Un sch  ool
 * Your most recent version of the first paragraph is excellent, and I can support it as it stands now. Un  sch  ool  21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we try to reduce the size of the paragraphs, we should start with redundant information and wording. "popularly known to history" does not really offer anything more than "popularly known", nor does mentioning the exact age he was when he died. (356-323 BC is enough I think). GK1973 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your general point about wording, yes, economy of words is desirable, and the point is well made with the example you chose regarding "popularly known". And while you are correct that economy can be achieved by omitting his age, I rather think I'd want to make an exception for this one.  We are likely to have many readers (hopefully, the very young ones) who will not be able to cope easily with the calculations necessary for BC time frames.  I'd still like to include his age.  Un  sch  ool
 * OK, no problem, I just added it to my text. GK1973 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Second Paragraph
 * Entering fully into the spirit of condensation, I would like to see the passage between the stars **** - **** further reduced.
 * This was of course expanded at the suggestion of GK1973. I felt that it was too much detail for the lead, but GK argues that the destruction of Thebes is noteworthy enough to include here, because Alexander's character is somehow revealed by his regret over the razing.  But I still don't know what he means by this.  I shrank it somewhat from what GK had and I would be happy to shrink it to something more like I had earlier.  Un  sch  ool


 * It terms of weighting, there is still too much detail on the first year of his reign, relative to his later, (and more epic), conquest of Persia.
 * I think it would be useful and justifiable to list, in the second paragraphs, the major regions that he conquered, because it helps the reader visualize the course that he took on his conquests. In listing these, I recommend using the broadest terms possible (Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia).  For regions east of Persia I'm not sure what terms we should use, the modern or ancient.)  What do you think of adding this?  Un  sch  ool


 * Actually, as I stated above, Alexander did not have Thebes razed. He left the decision to his allies and bitter enemies of Thebes, who decided to raze it. This is why I did not attribute the decision to Alexander, although he is presented as having regretted the fact that he allowed the punishment to be delivered.


 * I am content with omitting his Balkan campaign. I also do not think that it was important enough. The "put down some revolts in his kingdom" part, though, is problematic. First, there was actually one notable revolt and secondly it was not in his kingdom. Do not forget that Alexander had not conquered Greece. He established hegemony, which was a totally different thing back then. And of course, no lands Alexander ever conquered were ever considered parts of his kingdom. The terminology here can be a little confusing, but his "kingdom" was only Macedonia, as was dictated by Philip II (It is interesting to note, that when Arrian talks of Macedonians, he includes men from Greek cities conquered by Philip, like Amphipolis, an Athenian colony!).  GK1973 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we're on the same page here. I don't see any references to conquering Greece in the most recent version, but I will look for lines that might imply that.  Un  sch  ool

Third Paragraph
 * In general, too much emphasis was placed on Alexander's attempts to hybridise the cultures of Greece and Persia. These attempts were not very successful, and were largely rejected by the Successors. However, the spread of Greek culture under the Successors was much more long lasting. This is why the Successors are an important component of this introduction.
 * Wow. I agree with your analysis on the hybridization, but more importantly, I think your third paragraph is really good.  Un  sch  ool


 * Basically, I'm ready to use MFBT's 1st and 3rd paragraphs as they stand, and I think we can use his 2nd paragraph as a foundation for our final version, pending the integration of the ideas mentioned above.  Un  sch  ool  21:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And then I ran out of time. To be continued, when I have a moment!! MFBT


 * As I also stated above, there were many more than 4 states emerging from Alexander's Empire, so any mentioning of numbers is highly debatable. Plus, "the rise of Rome" is very vague as a timeframe and should not be used to denote the date when the Hellenistic kingdoms fell to Roman (or any other) supremacy. Macedonia fell first, then the Seleucids, the Ptolemies lasted much longer (3 centuries and not 2), the Bactrians even longer. Many of the easternmost satrapies were quickly conquered by the Maruyans, Pergamon was bequeathed to Rome, the Parthians also took their share etc. I do not think that we should get into that here, for should we want to be precise with the fate of all these states, we would have to get into much more detail. GK1973 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Point well taken on the ending dates of these states. Whether it needs to go into the article as a whole I do not care about right now, it probably does overcomplicate the lead, if included.  I will try to find another blanket way to close it out, as your point about using Rome as an endpoint seems valid.  Un  sch  ool

Okay, I'll work on the next version now. Un sch  ool  04:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I see you've done one while I was typing this. Good deal!  I'll look it over and comment.  Un  sch  ool  05:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes on GK's 2nd version
First Paragraph

- I reorganized the paragraph placing the last sentence in the lead. I think it reads much better now. - I omitted the words I proposed above

Second Paragraph

- I shortened the second paragraph even more by omitting the problematic part about the rebellion of Athens and Thebes along with the Balkan campaign. "firmly established his rule" says it all. For more info, the reader will address the appropriate paragraphs within the article. - I slightly altered the sentence with the placenames, since it read as if Alexander waged his battles mainly in those places (he did not), separating the battles from the marching of his army (I liked the idea of inserting some placenames to help the reader orientate). - The last sentence I moved to the last paragraph, since it had to do with his death.

Third Paragraph

- Moved the last sentence of P2, as stated above to follow the mentioning of his death. - Rewrote the next sentences, for they were unfortunately problematic (A. He had heirs. The whole pretext of the Diadochi was their "allegiance" to Alexander IV... B. It was not "his Generals" who engaged in war, but some of the most prominent (and some not so prominent), but certainly not all, actively sought to form their own states. C. It was not 4 kingdoms that were created out of this process, this is alas too complicated to analyze here D. "the rise of Rome" is too vague to be used as a timeframe E. "two centuries" is not correct) To cover all these aspects, I added the "legitimate heir"+"War of the Diadochi" sentence, mentioned the formation of states and onomatized the two most prominent with the names of the ruling families (as they are known today, back then they were called Asia and Egypt...). Did not mention a specific timeframe of their demise but mentioned their conquest by the Romans. - Finally, I reinserted the lead of Unschooled regarding the Hellenistic Age and coupled it with MFBT's last addition and slightly restructured the closure keeping the actual sentences.
 * The movement of the last sentence of P2 (where I had thought it was particulaly well placed, ending his life in the paragraph of the same) was a very good move on your part, GK. I had not even noticed the redundancy in the previous version, where he died in both P2 and P3.  Yes, your version works very well.  Un  sch  ool  05:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am quite content with this text. If you think that the third paragraph is too long (the overall size of the lead did not change), we can easily omit the part about the Lagides and the Seleucids to make it shorter. GK1973 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you see below I had the same thought, though for different reasons. I will incorporate it next.  Un  sch  ool  05:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes on GK v2
Well, first of all, I am really happy with how this process has been playing out. This is turning out to be one very solid lead section. And the only points that I have now are minor, even question marks, really.
 * What's the deal with the "Generalship of Greece"? I have no opinion on it, because I think I must not understand its significance.  But I've noticed, GK, that this is important to you.  Can you explain it to me?
 * The mentioning of the Generalship of Greece has to do with two facts we should not elaborate on here. First, that the southern Greek states were not actually "conquered", but had voted for Alexander to be the "General of Greece" as they had done for Philip some years before and secondly, that the campaign of Alexander against the Persians had a panhellenic character and was supposed to be waged as vengeance and punishment for the two invasions of Greece one and a half centuries before and the subjugation of the Ionian cities. Should this part be omitted, the text will read as though the invasion of Persia was only a Macedonian matter, which goes against the character of the campaign, as related by the ancients, and the "conquest" of Greece will oversimplify as a solid military subjugation. With the adition of just 3-4 words, we address all these matters (and more) in a correct, brief and academic way. GK1973 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all I've got. Un sch  ool  05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this sentence, "Among these, the kingdoms formed by the Seleucids and the Lagides would dominate the eastern Mediterranean until brought under the control of the Roman Empire." is really necessary. As you noted yourself, there were several of these kingdoms.  Mentioning two might be justifiable, but then including the Roman stuff could mislead a reader into thinking that the Romans conquered Alexander's dominions wholesale, which of course is completely untrue.  And as you noted before, the Bactrians were left unmolested for centuries, out of reach not only of the Romans but even Indian states, if I recall correctly.


 * I only added these to keep MFTB's format. I also proposed above that we can omit them if we want to shorten the third paragraph. GK1973 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Version 7/8
I tried, but I couldn't come up with a version of Paragraph 1 that I liked better than MFBT's. His last version really was the best, I feel. I'm going to redo it as Version 8, restoring his opening paragraph. Un sch  ool  05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, it is a matter of taste. Two things though, first this "consequences of his death" has to change with something having to do with culture and since you don't want any details on hellenistic states (I also have no problem with that), this "lasted for centuries" has to go too... For a state to "last for centuries" is nothing special nor noteworthy. GK1973 (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The "lasted for centuries" was crap, and I knew it, but it had nothing to do with it being impressive that they lasted so long. I put it in there because I felt that something needed to go between the two sentences—they're just too stark as they are now, they have no flow.  It worked better when you had that long sentence in there, but I don't want to go back to that.  I can live with it as it is now.
 * I thought "consequences of his death" was rather well written, as it encompassed a lot, but now that I think of it, it violates WP:LEAD's admonition about "teasing" the reader. Your current version is better.  One thought:  would you consider switching "Hellenic" at the end of the first paragraph to "Greek"?  Un  sch  ool  06:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * again, no problem, it just connects better with "Hellenistic" but it is the same. GK1973 (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking about my students, who while they need to learn the difference between Hellenic civilization and Hellenistic civilization, are unlikely to avoid confusion in an article like this.
 * Well, I'm ready to sign off on this, pending comments from MFBT. What do you think?   Un  sch  ool  06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am content. btw, I hope you saw my last edit concerning the occurrence of the names of Alexander and Philip in the 2nd p GK1973 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye.  Un  sch  ool  06:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes on Version 9
This has definitely been a very satisfactory process, and I think we are getting very close now.

I don't think I made any major edits to paragraphs 1 and 2 (only grammar/spelling).

Paragraph 3
 * I don't think we can introduce the Wars of the Diadochi without first saying who the Diadochi were. Again, for me, this is an important point; the Diadochi were Alexander's political legacy.
 * I think it's also important to introduce the idea of the Hellenistic period in the lead.
 * "Impressive as his conquests were...": This is a clear POV; the reader should form his own opinion about whether Alexander's conquests were impressive, we shouldn't tell him.
 * Cultural synthesis ; it wasn't a synthesis: no-one made new culture, they just adopted bits of both. I struggled for a while to think of a word that wasn't hybridisation (already used), but I think fusion works rather nicely.

That's it.


 * Hmmm... sorry, but I think that these last edits cause more problems than they solve.

"Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BC, before having the chance to start a series of planned campaigns, beginning with the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. Without a legitimate heir his empire was torn apart by his generals (this directly implies that all his generals were the Diadochi. This is a mistake.) (the Successors or Diadochi), in a series of civil wars. The kingdoms eventually established during this chaotic period (too much personal opinion. It was actually a less chaotic time than most other Macedonian civil wars (and there were many)), would dominate the eastern Mediterranean for two centuries (Also a mistake. The states that emerged did not dominate the eastern Mediterranean, only one did, and their lifespan was not 2 centuries, not even of these two.), which historians refer to as the Hellenistic Period (also redundant information, since we are trying to be brief, yet worth adding under conditions, see below). Alexander's lasting legacy was not his reign, but the cultural fusion (there was no fusion, fusion implies equal mix, it is too strong a word for this. It was Greek culture dominating over eastern culture yet sharing some of its aspects) wrought by his conquests. The export of Greek colonists and culture to the new kingdoms, begun by Alexander, led to a hybrid "Hellenistic" culture, aspects of which were still evident in the traditions of the Byzantine Empire up until the mid-15th century. Alexander himself became legendary, as a classical hero in the mould of Achilles and features prominently in the history and myth of Greek and non-Greek cultures. He became the measure against which generals, even to this day, compare themselves, and his tactical exploits are still taught in military academies throughout the world.iii[›] "

I have to disagree with these changes. In such a short text we should be neither overly vague nor add hazy details which need elaboration to be properly addressed. I agree with mentioning the Hellenistic Period, but I would prefer it substituting the mentioning of a "hybrid Hellenistic culture". The mentioning of both is, to my opinion, too much. [

- We don't have to say who the Diadochi were if we link the word to the appropriate article. Since we mention that this was a "civil war" it is obvious that some Macedonians of some prominence (and some other Greeks) took part in these events.


 * I don't think we should specifically name the "Wars of the Diadochi" if we are not going to introduce the term "diadochi" first.

- "Synthesis" is a better word. It means "a bringing together of ideas" not just to "make" and is more neutral than "fusion" allowing for one element to dominate. GK1973 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am too used to hearing "synthesis" in a biological sense (usually used to mean 'make/create'). You are correct - synthesis is fine here.

- "Impressive as his conquests were..." I think that there is no objection as to the impressiveness of Alexander's conquests... This is the gist of the article. Should you consider that POV, then you should rewrite the whole article!


 * "Impressive" is, by definition, entirely subjective. There is no way you can argue that this is not a point of view. Let me be clearer: even if 99% of people believe Alexander's conquests to be impressive, that is still their point of view. I am not suggesting that "impressive" is an unusual point of view regarding Alexander's conquests; nor I am not suggesting that it is pushing an specific agenda; nor I am suggesting that it represents a biased point of view. But it is still, by definition, a point of view. If the reader is a pacificist, will the really be impressed by Alexander's constant campaigning?


 * If we really want to keep this sentence structure, we could use "extensive". This is at least a defensible position; we can quantify their extent.

I prefer V8's 3rd p.

GK1973 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To address the problems pinpointed by MFBT, I slightly changed the third paragraph adding

A. the word "Successors" next to the Greek "Diadochi" to make the text even more understandable.

B. changed the part about the "hybrid" Hellenistic culture to a more neutral wording, mentioning the Hellenistic Era but not directly or indirectly commenting on how Greek or Oriental dominating it was. Since the phrase is linked, the reader can very easily look it up to find more details. GK1973 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * I generally prefer V8's P3 as well, but I have some minor comments.
 * I prefer the first sentence of MFBT's P3; though GK's might appear a bit more elegant, MFBT's is more "friendly" (immediately comprehensible) to students and others of limited vocabulary, who would often fail to realize the meaning of "realize" realized in this sentence.
 * I don't see the need for the words "of ruling age" after "heir" in GK's P3
 * I don't care for the use of "Hellenistic" twice in MFBT's P3; I'm sure it's unnecessary.
 * It appears that all of us agree that the amalgamation of Greek and eastern cultures is potentially overstated. I'm not sure whether fusion or synthesis is a better word, but English is a rich language, and we may be able to find another.  I've thought about using blending, but I suspect that GK will have the same objection.  A safe choice, methinks, is mixing, but that's so bland that I'd want to avoid it if possible.  What about turning to a field that specifically studies the spreading of cultures:  sociology.  From sociology we get the term Cultural diffusion, which I think might fit nicely into our situation.
 * I am persuaded by GK that the "two century" comment, for the life of the states, is an inadvisable inclusion, for reasons expressed earlier in this discussion. Un  sch  ool  08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "realize" can be changed, although, in my opinion, our aim should not be to cover users with limited vocabulary. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a kids encyclopedia, so style and elegance should matter. There are many synonyms...


 * The "of ruling age" is a must since Alexander had legitimate sons but they were all children at the time of his death. The Diadochi were supposed to rule as regents, until of course in the course of the wars, all of Alexander's offfsiprings conveniently stumbled on real pointy swords... Otherwise it reads as though Alexander had no heirs... GK1973 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Version 11
I've also made some comments above.

I have kept the basic structure of Version 10's paragraph 3, with just a few changes in wording.
 * I've removed all reference to the Diadochi, and just linked through to the relevant articles. I think this is probably for the best.
 * I've described the Wars of the Diadochi as "a series of civil wars", since that's what they are. Note that this is how they are described in the relevant Wikipedia article.
 * I've swapped the reference to "Hellenistic Era" for "Hellenistic Culture". Aspects of the culture lasted to the 15th century, the Era did not.

The only thing I will not compromise on is "Impressive". This is, by any standards, a direct statement of opinion; even if it is a balanced, widespread opinion, wikipedia is not about opinions.

The only question I have left is: do we really need to mention the arabian peninsula? This now seems excessive detail in an otherwise very pared-down introduction. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * I definitely prefer MFBT's treatment of the Hellenism in v11; both his reasoning and the wording appeal to me.
 * I don't actually agree with MFBT's point re "Impressive", but can still go along with it. But let me explain my feelings on this matter, as it is a significant issue across Wikipedia.  Is it POV?  There comes a point on a few historical issues where superlatives and other such "opinionated" terms achieve such overwhelming consensus amongst historians that WP:NPOV is no longer applicable.  Was Confucius the most important Chinese philosopher in the first 2000 years of Chinese history?  Was the American Civil War the greatest crisis in the history of the United States?  To answer yes to these questions is to support an "opinion", yet are they really matters of dispute?  I just think it is not excessive to describe the conquest of the world's largest empire by a kid in his 20s as "impressive", but hey, I'm sure we can find other wording that we'll all agree on.
 * As I've argued above, it doesn't matter whether a majority of people agree or not. It's still an opinion. If you can quantify an argument, then this kind of statement can be upheld. For Confucius, we could for instance show that his work is referred to more times than any other Chinese philosopher in printed works. For the American Civil War, we can make arguments by comparing it to other crises; economic cost, human casualties, &c. These things can be measured by external criteria. Can you quantify "impressive"? It is entirely vague, and whether something is impressive or not is up to the reader, not the editor. There are plenty of historians who are not impressed by Alexander's campaigns; let's not forget that a lot of people died as a result of the whims of a kid in his twenties.


 * It is also slightly disingenuous to suggest that there are situations were WP:NPOV can be suspended; the point-of-view of the encyclopedia article should always be neutral - otherwise it is an opinion piece. There are occasions where something is so obvious that it doesn't really need to be referenced, or when the use of superlatives is justified, but this is not necessarily a violation of NPOV.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I should maybe explain why I'm so bothered by this. Personally, like everyone here, I find Alexander's campaigns impressive. However, I eventually intend to submit the article for GA review, and the "impressive" doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making through the review process. It seems pointless to put something in the lead now which will only be deleted later. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I rather like MFBT's wording here: Without a legitimate heir his empire was torn apart in a series of civil wars; I think by itself it might be slightly better wording than what we had before. However, there could still be one possible problem.  Were all the Diadochi members of the Macedonian nobility?  If so, I think MFBT's wording works.  If not, it might still need some more tweaking.
 * All the Diadochi were Macedonian, with the exception of Eumenes of Cardia; but since he didn't end up with a kingdom, the sentence is accurate as it stands.


 * Do we have to have the reference to the Arabian Peninsula? No, but I would prefer it.  We have listed the other campaigns by name, and I would like this one mentioned, if only to clarify that he wasn't planning on invading Nubia or the Central Asian steppes or whatever.  Would it be better if we said "Arabia" instead of "Arabian Pennisula"?   Un  sch  ool  20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can happily accept the retention of this phrase MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Version 12
I just read v 12. I am content with it except for the "of ruling age" detail. As I stated above Alexander had male sons and they were considered by the Diadochi legitimate heirs. The problem was that they were too young to rule, so they ruled in their stead. GK1973 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am also content with version 12. "Remarkable" is a much better choice of word. I have to agree with GK1973 about the heir thing. The issue is not so much about legitimacy, or age. Philip III Arrhidaeus was a legitimate heir to Alexander (as a son of Philip II), and was of ruling age; Alexander IV was a more direct choice, but was not even born when Alexander died. Alexander's other son does not seem to have been considered legitimate until the other choices had been killed. Anyway, Alexander had a legitimate, living heir when he died. By all accounts Arrhidaeus was not exactly an inspiring choice, but he was nevertheless chosen.


 * How do we solve this? The problem was not that there were no heirs, but that those heirs were not able/willing to take control of the situation (through extreme youth or otherwise). MFBT.


 * What about "suitable heirs". Not perfect, but covers all bases. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Arridaeus was not a heir but just another member of the Argead line. Heir "of Alexander" is by definition a son of Alexander, so this "of ruling age" thing is actually correct. Arrhideus was a son of Philip but had mental problems and would have never been actually accepted by the army (the king should be accepted by the army in Macedonia). This is why he wasn't killed by Alexander in the first place (he killed many other suitors to the Macedonian throne as did all other kings). His actual heirs were just too young. Next in line were many other Macedonian nobles whether Argead or not (the Argead line was one of the ruling Houses of the Macedonian kingdoms - actually there were more Macedonian kingdoms than just the "Macedonia" of the Argeads.). Or we just omit this detail altogether. To my opinion, it is not that important anyway. GK1973 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lucky 13
Comments from Un  sch  ool
 * GK, you are right about the verb "realize", and I've changed it back. We do hope to edify our readers, don't we?
 * MFBT, while I'm not yet totally persuaded about the "impressive" thing, I do see your point, especially since you plan to get this article recognized. Even though I don't necessarily see it your way, I would also want to avoid a completely unecessary battle over such a trivial point.  Glad to go your way on this, and I'm glad you liked "remarkable". (I tried about eight or nine words before I settled on that one.)
 * I don't want you to think that I'm accusing you two of "splitting heirs" :-) because I know that your arguments have been intelligent and well-reasoned.  They're also making my head spin.  And I'm a reasonably intelligent person who just has not been getting enough sleep.  So I've come up with a new solution, which I am very hopeful that you will accept, if not embrace.

Looking forward to your comments. Un sch  ool  01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is OK by me. The only drawback is the mentioning to "clear succesors", which has the same weakneses as the "legitimate heirs" of other vesions. Maybe we should just omit this information and jump directly to the civil war. I really hate to be that tiring, but the Macedonian system of selecting the next king was indeed peculiar in itself. Whereas the "clear" and "legitimate" succesor would, at the start, be Alexander IV, the system allowed for members of the royal family to be considered for kingship as long as they were acknowledged by the army. Of course this fact, always led to civil wars and assassination sprees)(Most of Alexander's ancestors waged their own civil wars to confirm their position). Maybe we should just write : "Immediately after Alexander's death, his empire was torn apart in a series of civil wars, which resulted in the formation of a number of states ruled by Macedonian nobility.". Thus we overcome of the problem of discussing in 4 words what really demands half a page... GK1973 (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's ok by me too. I agree with GK1973's suggestion, but might suggest that the wording be "In the aftermath of Alexander's death, his empire...". Immediately suggests that it was...well, immediate, whereas it took a while before the civil wars really got going.


 * But basically, I'm happy with any of a) the current wording, b) GK 1973's wording or c) my wording. I suggest that Unschool chooses his favourite, and we all then agree that we have a final version. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments about final version
One of you had earlier mentioned the idea of dropping the whole heir/successor thing before; at the time I didn't like the idea. But I put it in like that, and it works. It works because of the transitions the two of you provided above. My only problem with MFBT's was a really, really picky one: I felt his usage of "aftermath", while extremely common, was wrong. I was taught that the aftermath was what happened afterward, not the period of time during which it happened. In other words, the civil wars didn't happen during the aftermath, they were the aftermath. Anyway, turns out I was wrong, MFBT's usage is, in fact, proper (as was mine). But I'm having trouble getting past the way it sounds to me when I read it. GK's version had the "immediately" issue; in terms of millenia of history, it was, for all intents and purposes, immediate, but why set yourself up for that argument someday from someone who isn't here with us today, if it can be avoided? Anyway, I nonetheless found another wording that I feel good about, and will use.

My version reads: "In the years following Alexander's death, his empire was torn apart in a series of civil wars, which resulted in . . . " I think this works because "in the years following" is quite vague. Does it mean starting right after his death? A year later? Either way, it works. Alexander dies in 323, the First War of the Diadochi begins in 322. And hey, if that's not soon enough for you, the Lamian War in Greece began the same summer that AlexMax expired. So I'm comfortable with this wording, and I think you guys will be, too. Un sch  ool  02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments regarding this process
This has been one of the most gratifying experiences I have had in my four years on Wikipedia. I can't thank the two of you enough for letting me be a part of this process. Frankly, I think we have a right to be proud of what we have wrought here. I do not plan on having this page of my userspace deleted; I am going to make a link to it available at Talk:Alexander the Great, in case anyone has questions about how the lead came to be in this form. Thanks again. Un sch  ool  02:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have participated in this effort! I just hope our lead stands the test of time and is not reverted or otherwise strongly contested in the next few days or weeks... GK1973 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)