Talk: Alexander the Great

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

There are so many misstatements, misrepresentations and presentations of speculation and/or unreliable source accounts as fact in this entry that it's difficult to know where to begin correcting them - and, at the moment, I'm unwilling to make the effort at correcting them, given the amount of time that would be required. Nonetheless, if this is representative of what a Wiki encyclopedia has to offer, it's a damning indictment of the whole notion of open source history.

Here are just three examples:

In the Early Life section, the contention that Alexander was responsible for spreading the "legends" (more properly "logos" or stories - legends are folklore, not propaganda) about Zeus fathering him. (Virtually this entire section is from Plutarch, btw.) The evidence for this viewpoint is shaky, mostly relies on hostile sources and is not generally accepted by historians. The most likely original sources of these stories are Callisthenes, his official campaign historian, or, especially, Onesicritus, his chief helmsman and author of a lost work entitled "The Education of Alexander" that was infamous for its many inventions and wild exaggerations.

In the Period of Conquests section, it is stated as fact that Alexander was proclaimed Pharoah by the priests of Amon. In fact, no such statement is attributed to the high priest of the Libyan deity Ammon by any of the sources, although, according to several of the source historians, the high priest greeted him with the words "O Paidos", which translates as "O Son of God". He is specifically said to have been crowned as Pharoah at Memphis ONLY in the Alexander Romance, which is not considered a reliable source in any way by any one.

In the Death section, the absurd speculation of the unnamed New Scotland Yard detective is presented as definitive. In fact, the described symptoms of Alexander's death do not in any way conform to those of hellebore poisoning and the poisoning theory is universally deprecated by modern historians. In the article "A Mysterious Death" in The New England Journal of Medicine, 38:1764-1769 (June 11), 1998, Eugene N. Borza (one of the most respected scholars of Alexander and Macedon of the 20th Century), David W. Oldach, M.D. (then Professor of Pathology at the University of Maryland Medical School), Robert E. Richard, M.D., Ph.D., and R. Michael Benitez M.D. (both also of the UM Med School) present a compelling case for Salmonella typhi enteritis, complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis as the cause of Alexander's Death. Oldach's analysis notes, "If ascending paralysis developed during the course of Alexander's fatal febrile illness (presumably typhoid fever), this paralysis may have given the impression of death before it actually occurred," in addressing the stories in both Curtius and Arrian that Alexander's body showed no signs of corruption after several days of being locked in his bedroom at the height of the Babylonian summer.

There are any number of other, similar problems with this article - far too many for me to correct at the moment. However, I think you should definitely add Plutarch's "Life of Alexander" (particularly in view of the fact that the Early Life section is drawn almost entirely from that work), as well as the Roman rhetor Justin's "Epitome of the Phillipic History of Pompeius Trogus" and the Roman geographer Strabo's "Geography" to your list of Ancient Sources. - Thom Stark

Ive corrected many misspellings (dont think anyone will disagree).
The Kingdom of Macedon was part of Classical Greece. Im giving a map (two links, same map):

Classical%20Greece.jpg http://www.wellesley.edu/ClassicalStudies/CLCV104/images/classical_greece.gif Please dont mix Athens with Greece.

Epirus was not wild, nor semi(!)greek

-Stefka

Someone added a bit about Anaxarchus pointing to Alexander's blood as a sign he was mortal. But according to another tradition, Alexander himself had once pointed to it when someone else claimed it was ichor, so a reminder as a check to his divine aspirations seems a little odd. Any stories about Alexander have to be examined carefully. Does someone have a reference for this?

Haven't heard that one. I've added a bunch of stuff here from Arrian and Plutarch, and it's compatible with Peter Green's discussion of the Diadochoi (for the most part) in Alexander to Actium. I've tried to make this a bit more NPOV, as it seemed just a little too surprised that someone might see Alexander in any but the most positive of all possible lights. -- Blain

Changed Macedonia link to Macedon; ancients didn't call their land Macedonia, and the entry we have on "Macedonia" isn't useful for Alexander. Should probably have an article on Macedon, and take the one sentence about Alexander out of Macedonia, maybe with a "see also." Vicki Rosenzweig

IIRC, the kingdom was Macedon, but it became Macedonia when conquered by the Romans. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a problem with Macedon/Macedonia, but don't the naming conventions suggest that articles be named based on their most popular usage, rather than their most correct usage (if there's a difference)? Perhaps using Macedonia to refer to recent history and Macedon for ancient history would work (with "see also" back and forth)? -- Blain

My native language is Greek and I can assure you that Macedon and Macedonia is the same thing. Macedonia is the "modern" way to say Macedon. Maybe you should change back the link to Macedonia from Macedon. If the article about Macedonia is not informative enough you could always change it.

Just a note about the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander. Those two were two different personalities and they used to clash a lot but Alexander did something that makes me wanter if their relationship was as bad as people think today. While he was invading Asia he would send to his teacher all new and interesting animals that he would incounter in his expedition because he knew that old Aristotle was almost obsessed with the classification of things. The result was that Aristotle formed a kind of a zoo back in Macedonia from the gifts of his student. Now, if young Alexander was so sick of his teacher why did he bother? --Eanorel

Good point. I think Alexander was complicated enough that trying to determine who he liked and who he didn't (and which was safer) isn't all that easy. He was known to treat his enemies rather well and to kill his friends when they ticked him off. I think he might have respected Aristotle and just not wanted to spend time around him anymore. Just a thought -- Blain

The most recent edits to this article are very strange. Why change Egypt to "Pgypt"?? Why delete the paragraphs that were deleted? Can someone give me a reality check on this? -- April

Need more on Hephaestion.

I second this. Lizzie 05:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RE Erotomenes:

1) Am I spelling this correctly? 2) Am I using this correctly? 3) We probably should have an entry on this, no?UPDATE:

Should be Eromenos. Apparently implies a young (or "younger than" man), so probably not appropriate for Hephaestion, who was apparently the same age as Alexander or slightly older.

Perhaps this could use a passing mention of the Gordian Knot? One of the anecdotes of his life more commonly used in metaphor. --JohnOwens 15:16 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to Alexander III of Macedon (is taht right)? becasue native people of ares around Persia do nto consider him to be "the Great" they really dont liek him think hes "the Terrible". -fonzy

His name is Alexander the Great, regardless of what you actually think of the man. At the time, different kings of the same name were not given numbers as they are now, but were given sobriquets. For instance, Demetrius the Besieger, Seleucus the Victor, Ptolemy the Savior. It would be silly to argue that Demetrius wasn't really a capable besieger or that Ptolemy wasn't actually a savior, and the same situation applies here. It should be noted, though, that the other kings are typically referred to by number, so perhaps Alexander should be moved for consistency sake - but not because "the Great" is NPOV. --Josh Grosse

I agree -- we shouldn't start calling Charlemagne "Charle," either. Slrubenstein

Why would i want to move Charlemagne to Charlie?? Anyway I still think it should move ok, to me it does not mean naything but to native people of those areas they dont consider him "great" there hes not called Alexander the Great, i cnat remember exactly what they call him. But names like Edward the Confessor are not as abit an issue, as its not really emplying anything. But he was called the greta because the people who named him that believed that he was. -fonzy

It would be absurd to rename the page. This is covered by policy already: "best known common name". Now Google isn't the be-all and end-all, sure, but are you seriously contemplating moving to a name that gets 306 Google hits from one that gets 199,000? Tannin 11:43 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

We shouldn't change the name, but I think we should change the sentence Alexander is remembered as a legendary hero in Europe and much of western and central Asia, where he is known as Iskander. fonzy is I believe correct about Alexander's reputation in western Asia. Incidentally, even referring to a monarch by number can be NPOV, e.g. Napoleon III, or Elizabeth II of Scotland. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody state the refference for his birthday in June? Are you sure about this? Because i remember reading in Plutrach that he was of the sign of Leo (21 July - 21 August), and he wore a lion ring all of his life. Muriel Gottrop.

I am afraid the reference is again Plutarch. He states that Alexander was born at the same night Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Since that event is placed on June 21 , 356 in wikipedia's timelines so does Alexander's birth. See if placement needs correcting. User: Dimadick

You were right. Most sites about Alexander place his birth on July, 356 and those trying to assign dates use either July 20 or July 26. I'll change the birth date and the burning according to your info. Thanks. User: Dimadick

see Alexander the Great (pl) : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Macedo%C5%84ski

  LINK Macedonii
  -----> Alexander the Great is Slav !!      Vandalism

Date of Alexander's birth July 26 ?? sources: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t32.html and http://www.infoephesus.com/templeofartemis.php

Table formatting replaced with "div" formatting

Contemporary bust of Alexander the Great

                   .. Rednblu 03:02 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know if his body was taken by Ptolemy I to Egypt?

--ciaran

I learned in my HIS 101 class that Alexander the Great inherited the conquered Greek city-states, but that Sparta was not yet conquered, so he conquered Sparta then went on to conquer Persia. Is this fact or fiction?

He did not conquer Sparta. Sparta was not part of Philip's League of Corinth, but was quiescent. Upon Alexander's accession, he marched north to deal with some northern tribes. Rumors came back that he was dead. Thebes revolted, and he put down the revolt with prejudice. Then he went off to Persia. Antipater was left as regent, and during that time had to deal with a war with Sparta, which he won. Sparta never did join the league, though. john 06:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the Sparta situation. The number knowledgeable people on Wikipedia amazes me. Thank you.

Something that surprised me was the article's statement that he inherited a conquered Greece, and began his campaigns at the Dardannelles. (Well, I may have it wrong, but that is the impression I received.) What about him pacifying the revolts on the two sides of the Danube, and the subjugation of Thebes and selling its leading citizens into slavery; are those stories not historical? Pagan 07:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 Date of his death June 11 not 10

2 Transliteration

3 Alexander Romance

4 Aristander of Telmessus

5 "medizing"

6 Greek etymology, Albanian nationalism

7 Diadochi

8 greec terminology

9 Additions

10 Homosexual, or not?

11 Macedonian Slavs

12 Alexander sources and legend

12.1 Sources
12.2 Legend
12.3 Popular

Date of his death June 11 not 10

This page http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t41.html makes a good case for June 11 being the date of Alexander's death.

Transliteration

What do people think about transliteration? I'd like to get Alexander entirely in one system. Having one part of the bio talk of "Isokrates," and another "Cleopatra" gives me the willies. The prevalent system in this article is the "conventional" English-through-Latin scheme, eg., Athens (not Athenai), Ptolemy (not Ptolemaios), etc. This is still the dominant way--probably in academia and certainly on the Web, where public domain translations from earlier eras abound. The rule can have exceptions--I prefer to make a "minor" Ptolemy into a Ptolemaios to avoid confusion--but there would still be a rule.

Any objections? If I went through changing everything to the "conventional" system, will it get changed back?

Yes. Wikipedia policy is to use the naming that most English speakers know. Cleopatra is not Kleopatra. Isokrates is not Isocrates. Are you going to change Alexander to Aleksandros? RickK 05:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's jumbled. "Isocrates" is the better known (Google 20,600 vs 4,760). The K is Isokrates is the same letter (a kappa) in Kleopatra; these went into Latin as Cs, and this is the better-known form. Forms like Isokrates, Kleopatra, Alexandros, Ptolemaios, etc. reproduce the Greek spelling better, at the expense of being unfamiliar (and a bit exotic) to most readers.

Shouldn't the most common spelling be used, with redirects where necssary? Isocrates has an article; Isokrates does not even have a redirect. I have changed it. Are any other of the other names not "conventional"? The only one I can see is Parmenio who I know as Parmenion, but, again, there is no article for Parmenion so perhaps my education is at fault! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But nobody would recognize Kleopatra. Leave it at Cleopatra, and if you need to, explain the transliteration in the article about her. RickK 18:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, I suggest removing the section headlined "Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world." This seems to be a pointless exercise and the article is already rather long and digressive. Should one point out that in Spain Charlemagne is known as Carlomagno and New York as Nueva York, or that the current English monarch is referred to as Isabelle II in France? (Actually old Spanish encyclopaedias took this further and translated all given names, making George Washington into Jorge Washington, and so on.) -- Eb.hoop 2:05 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed that section. Besides my objection above, the forms of the name in other languages are already discussed in Alexander. Here's what I cut out:

Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world

Because of the diversity of the conquered lands, Alexander the Great was known by different names, if not in his time then in the stories passed down in generations since then.

Greek: ho Megas Alexandros (ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) or, more formally, Alexandros III ho Makedon (Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδόν): "Alexander the Great" or, more formally, "Alexander III of Macedon";; also Alexandros Philipou: "Alexander the son of Philip."
Albania: Aleksander , Lek meaning "Born as a dream" (Ai-ka-le-si-ander)
Central Asia: Iskander
Arab world and parts of India: Sikandar or Iskander (see the Iraqi city of Iskandariya, also called Sikandariyeh)
Parts of India: Alakshendra
Poland: Aleksander Macedoński
Russia: Александр Македонский (pronounced "Aleksandr Macedonski" literally means Alexander of Macedonia)
Spain: Alejandro

--Eb.hoop 12:02 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Romance

I added a bit about the Alexander Romance. How do we go about getting a separate entry for it? To describe it correctly--I didn't describe it's contents at al!--would range very far from the historical Alexander. Lectiodifficilior

Aristander of Telmessus

I added a note about Aristander of Telmessus being the seer who interpreted Philip's dream, and then went ahead and wrote a very full article on this fascinating individual. I wrote it with the intention of condensing a talk I gave on Aristander, which I will probably never get up on the web. As such, it pushes the edge of what's published about Aristander. It would be interesting to see if other's take it up. Lectiodifficilior

"medizing"

In the "character" section, Alexander is described as "medizing". I don't know this word, and I suspect most nonexperts in ancient history don't either. A Google search reveals it has something to do with Persia, but I can't find a clear definition. Could somebody clarify this? --Shibboleth 23:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It means "becoming like a Persian." Greeks conflated the Medes and the Persians. In Greek history it generally means either bending foreign policy (ie., "Finlandizing") or, as here, adopting suspect non-Greek habits (ie., "going native"). Lectiodifficilior

Greek etymology, Albanian nationalism

I reverted with slight changes the Albanian-language changes of 81.242.229.199. Alexander was half Epirote, the probable ancestors of the modern Albanians, but "Alexandros" is a perfectly normal, explicable, common and extremely ancient Greek name. (Not only was "Alexander" a Macedonian dynastic name before Epirotes married in, but the Trojan individual known to most Westerners as "Paris" was generally known in Greek as "Alexander.") By contrast the Albanian explanation ("born like a dream") is a folk etymology, and based on modern Albanian. Ancient Epirote--about which we know almost nothing--was surely quite different from modern Albanian. 2,300 years is a very long time, particularly as Albanian was not fixed in written form until the Renaissance.

To be fair, I also moved the Greek etymology "Defender or Men" down the page. As stated, the etymology is not particularly important. Greeks no more thought "Oh, he's a defender of men" when they met an Alexander as Germans think "Oh, he's a forest of fir trees" when they meet a Tannenwald, or American's think about barrel-making when they meet someone with the last name "Cooper." Lectiodifficilior

Diadochi

The section on the Diadochi ought to be pruned severely, since it's only semi-literate and better described elsewhere anyway. Stan 21:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I and others have had a go at tidying it, but I agree - most of it should be merged into Diadochi - are there any other obvious overlaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

greec terminology

as far as i know, the comander of the cavaliry is "hiparchus" (from hippo - horse) and not "chiliarchos" as it is written. gilgamesh_he

Additions

I just couldn't stand the misinformation on this page, so I made time to correct most of the errors. I have also cited Plutarch's actual text for the discussion of Alexander's birth and origins, expanded the discussion of the Central Asian campaign and the death of Darius, added two of the primary sources and fine-tuned some of the grammar.

- Thom Stark

In general, this is good, thanks! In a couple places, you added "some historians" or "most historians", but without (presumably modern) attributions, so I don't know what books to go buy. :-) Ancient authors are fun, but only moderns, Peter Green for instance, are in a position to tell us who to believe. Stan 04:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Homosexual, or not?

The summary mentions he was homosexual, but that word never even occurs in the rest of the article. If it's important enough to be in the summary, you'd think it would make the main article. 170.35.224.64 18:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No kidding. The question of Alexander's sexuality is even in the news at the moment, thanks to Oliver Stone's film. There should be at least a paragraph explaining why Alexander is believed by some to have been homosexual. The Singing Badger 21:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a whole section on 'Alexander's marriages and sexuality' now. --mav 16:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

Many modern Greeks and Macedonian Slavs are outraged at such suggestions

has any sense?

Alexander sources and legend

The sources and legend sections were removed somewhat earlier without discussion. Considering how major the revision and how many people worked on those sections I'm surpirsed this slipped by. I think they should be reinstated, and have done so. I think we should also reconstitute the "Alexander in Popular Culture." Stripped of the sources, legend and cultural impact, this is merely a narrow biography, full of errors and arguable claims. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but it shouldn't be narrow.

Sources

Without a section on the sources, we are left with a bare list of two sources, one only in Latin. But Plutarch, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin are *all* now fully online in English translations. More importantly, you simply cannot write a "biography" of Alexander--indeed of most ancient figures--without some reference to the source tradition. Alexander isn't Napoleon or some other absurdly well-documented modern; what we know about him is intimately tied to what ancient authorities said about him. The removal of the any sense of a source tradition is particularly bad in light of some of the decisions, eg., that Roman-era schoolboy exercise the "Letter of Diogenes" given as if it were a contemporary document. For shame! We might as well include Lucian's conversations with the dead Alexander.

Legend

Alexander is one of the world's great culture heroes—a hero to Jews, a prophet to Muslims, subject of one of the most widely-read works of literature, the Alexander Romance, etc. etc.. To eschew mention of this in favor of a lengthy and variably reliable list of his actions is myopic.

Open Encyclopedia