Talk:Alexander the Great

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAlexander the Great has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
September 11, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2019.
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024[edit]

Add title = Basileus under Philip's name like in Alexander the Great article Lonapak (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Could you clarify what "title" you are referring to? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to post it on Philip II of Macedon page but accidentally posted it here, I want the title of Basileus that's under Alexander's name to be for Philip as well. Lonapak (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning Alexander the Great's identity[edit]

Alexander the Great was a king of the Ancient Macedonian kingdom of Macedon, not Greek. There is no such thing. Davidzelevarov (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note d in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How did this change come about? This is supposed to be a semi-protected page. Any changes should be revieed thouroughly before going live. Pigay (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Remsense诉 23:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Pigay (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus among historians that Macedonians were Greeks by Roman times, not before, hence it is inaccurate to label Macedonians as Greeks during Alexander III of Macedon's time.
From MIT.edu website (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
5) What proof do you have that the ancient Macedonians were Greek?
The vast majority of major historians believe that the ancient Macedonians were Greek. Those who still remain skeptical, say that they need more evidence before proclaiming the ancient Macedonians as Greek. But no one says that ancient Macedonians were not Greek.
Recent excavations close to their ancient capital, Aigai, including the discovery of the `tomb of Philip the II', reinforce the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians categorically.
In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans. Pigay (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The (d) comment has many references. I went through 3 of those references but gave up. I didn't see any proof that mentions that Macedon was an ancient Greek polity nor any mention that Macedonians were a Greek tribe during Alexander the Great's time. During Alexander III's time, was it more like the Greek city states were tribes/polity of the great Macedonian empire? Pigay (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again on note (d). "According to the ancient historian Herodotus, they [the Mackednoi tribe who inhabited ancient Macedonia] were the first people who called themselves "hellenes". However, "the Mackednoi tribe had little to do with southern Greece for centuries". (see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/)
So that is a big NO over the claim that the ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe, until the Roman times, when "Rome took over Macedonian lands and the Macedonian kingdom ceased to exist". (see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/) Pigay (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Had little to do with" does not imply some sort of ethnic or cultural distinction. In the modern United States, it would be fair to say that residents of New Hampshire have little to do with San Francisco. That does not mean they are not aligned under one banner. I find plenty of support in the cited sources, "Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greeks all had their origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now, a political struggle created the prejudice" from Errington; "Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" in Fine; "King Philip of the northern Greek kingdom of Macedon..." in Jones, et al. Moreover, even your summary National Geographic source says "when King Phillip II became the ruler, he united the southern Greek city-states with the north, and brought them all under Macedonian rule." This is a tacit statement that the Macedonians were part of a greater Greek world. In order to "unite" the city-states, there would have to be some fundamental commonality. Otherwise it would be more accurate to say Philip "conquered" the southern Greek city-states. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key word "almost unanimously" means there is no consensus among historians.
The consensus is this: "In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans." (see MIT.edu)
And when "King Philip II of Macedon united the southern Greek city-states... under Macedonian rule", those city-states became the "polity" of the kingdom of Macedonia, not the other way around, as note (d) stated. Pigay (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While consensus can mean "unanimity," that is not generally the way it is understood on Wikipedia, and this aligns with a different meaning of consensus, to wit: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. "Near unanimity" is as close to consensus as you will ever get amongst historians. Aside from the fact that your MIT source appears to be an FAQ dating from the Clinton administration, your quote once again underlines the fact that the Macedonians were Greeks, as it says (emphasis mine) "the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks." For this to make any sense at all, it must mean that the Macedonians were Greeks, else you would not include "the rest," which explicitly includes Macedonians and Greeks in the same set. Dumuzid (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am emphasizing the timeline. Macedonians are considered fully homogenized Greeks by the time the Romans conquered the kingdom of Macedonia and ALL historians agree on this.
Even your source admits to "almost unanimity" on the timeline beginning Philip II's reign, which indicates almost there, but not quite. Some historians need more evidence.
I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules on unanimity, only the historian's. Historians aim for precision, which is why your reference admits to "almost unanimity" and NOT "unanimity" because the author(s) wants to be precise about the term and that is the historians are still debating.
MIT's page may be dated but it is responsible enough to update its pages when necessary. Historians will definitely be up in arms if MIT's statement is incorrect. MIT's prestige is on the line if it gives out fake information.
If the rules about unanimity is what it is you say, it is the more reason to read other encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia because the latter creates its own rules created by who knows? the masses?
By the way, ALL encyclopedias EXCEPT Wikipedia and the little known twinkl.ca, describe the kingdom of Macedonia at the time of Alexander the Great as "ancient" and NOT "ancient Greek".
I am only debating this because Wikipedia's page comes up on top of the search and some people do not have the time to read its references.
So how do you come up with the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned? Was there an online voting? I am definitely concerned but my vote was not counted. I did not know about this. I just joined. Pigay (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia often preexists in the form of our content guidelines, we don't reinvent it every time there's a discussion. Remsense诉 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. Just place a hyperlink on Wikipidia's rules on consensus and unanimity on publication. How does Wikipedia's open source come up with the "judgment arrived at by most concerned"? And who are these "most concerned"? Are they historians? Pigay (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS; WP:DUE. You really could've helped yourself here. Remsense诉 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake...asking for the link. Can you just give me the gist here? I'm interested in reading history and not the convoluted (to me) rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Pigay (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references are weak. at best, in terms of defending note (d). Note (d) should be removed and the "ancient Greek" should be reverted back to "ancient" in describing the kingdom of Macedonia during Alexander the Great's time. Pigay (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they not state that Macedonia was Greek, or what? I haven't looked yet. Remsense诉 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I said and what other encyclopedias have said ... "ancient". Pigay (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask you to be a little bit more considerate of my time going forward, because each of the sources I've checked in the relevant footnote do explicitly consider Macedonia of this period to be a Greek kingdom. No one cares about your opinion of them being weak, we don't want to take your word for it. They constitute a clear majority of reliable sources on the topic. Familiarize yourself with both the sources and the "rules and regulations", they're not that "convoluted". Remsense诉 14:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I placed "(to me)" because I can read reams of historical pages but not rules. That is why I am not a lawyer. Pigay (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't want to take your word for it"... who's "we"? It's not my intent to demean "you" all but believability is due to prestigious institutions like MIT, National Geographic Society, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. Pigay (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Macedonians were considered Greeks by Roman time, starting 168 BC, but not before. Pigay (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these sources say that you're wrong. I'm not going to keep replying, as you're happy wasting everyone's time. Remsense诉 14:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just say "all these sources" say I'm wrong? You just said you are going back to the footnotes of the references because you "checked in the relevant footnote do [sic] explicitly consider Macedonia of this period to be a Greek kingdom", and now you are just giving up?
You already read the references, getting the footnotes would be just as easy. I want to know the pages of the references where it says that Macedonians were Greeks before 168 BC because I want to see for myself.
Readers do not have to believe me. They can see for themselves. They can look at the references and read for themselves. Pigay (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, they are exactly where we have been saying they are:
  1. Immediately following a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.[d], the statement you are mad about, there is a footnote D.
  2. Footnote D reads Macedon was an Ancient Greek polity; the Macedonians were a Greek tribe.[328]
  3. In the attached citation on footnote D, there is the following bundle of references:
    Hornblower 2008, pp. 55–58; Joint Association of Classical Teachers 1984, pp. 50–51; Errington 1990, pp. 3–4; Fine 1983, pp. 607–08; Hammond & Walbank 2001, p. 11; Jones 2001, p. 21; Osborne 2004, p. 127; Hammond 1989, pp. 12–13; Hammond 1993, p. 97; Starr 1991, pp. 260, 367; Toynbee 1981, p. 67; Worthington 2008, pp. 8, 219; Cawkwell 1978, p. 22; Perlman 1973, p. 78; Hamilton 1974, p. 23; Bryant 1996, p. 306; O'Brien 1994, p. 25.
  4. In the article itself, you may click on any one of these names to be taken to the full citation for the book, often with a link to where you can read the page or pages in question on Google Books or the Internet Archive.
I am sorry if I am overexplaining in a way that's condescending, but I simply don't know what's left to explain. The only trouble I had finding it was because you abruptly removed it against every other editor present's explicit wishes. Don't do that. If you don't want to read our guidelines on consensus, the least you can do is trust us when we tell you not to do shit like that. Remsense诉 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no evidence that the historians reached a unanimous decision to declare the Macedonians Greeks before the Roman times. I read the references.
You seem to say "To hell with the historians. They may not reached unanimity but in Wikipedia, there is a different set of rules re: unanimity so I going to publish this truthiness in Wikipedia".
Somebody autoconfirmed me so he/she/X must have read this conversation and judged my evidence worthy of publication. Pigay (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if unanimity were the standard, then Wikipedia could never say anything about history. Unanimity is simply not achievable on 99.999% of historical topics. And autoconfirmation is, as the name implies, automatic. It is applied once certain thresholds are met. It does not involve a subjective judgment from a live person. You're wrong on the substance here and you're wrong on Wikipedia procedure. Simple as that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or did you not find the footnotes but instead, you maligned me being "happy wasting everyone's time".
If you are a real seeker of the truth, this debate should be second nature to you and to all editors of Wikipedia, and this debate should not be considered waste of time. Pigay (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:VNT. When you have a consensus (not necessarily unanimity!) for any changes you'd like to make, then by all means do so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TRUTH too. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21 May 2024 copy edit[edit]

@Lalaithan: In your edit of "21 May 2024" with edit summary indicating a copy edit of "was was", you seem to be implying that there was something wrong with the pre-existing text, presumably because "was" occurred twice in a row. The pre-existing text was

But this mania for Alexander, strange as it was, was overshadowed by subsequent events in Alexandria.

However, the pre-existing text, including the parenthetical expression of "strange as it was", was completely grammatical. This is demonstrated by removing the phrase, resulting in

But this mania for Alexander was overshadowed by subsequent events in Alexandria.

In the process, we have lost the presumably pertinent observation about the "strangeness" of the "mania for Alexander". Fabrickator (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then revert it? Rewrite it? Wikipedia edits aren't permanent and I don't have sole editing rights. Lalaithan (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2024[edit]

X: Alexander III of Macedon (Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος, romanized: Alexandros; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), most commonly known as Alexander the Great,[c] was a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.[d] He succeeded his father Philip II to the throne in 336 BC at the age of 20 and spent most of his ruling years conducting a lengthy military campaign throughout Western Asia, Central Asia, parts of South Asia, and Egypt. By the age of 30, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1]

Y: Alexander the Great (Ancient Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος, romanized: Alexandros; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), [c] was the king of the ancient kingdom of Macedonia from 336 BC until 323 BC .[d] Born Alexander III, he succeeded his father Philip II to the throne in June 336 BC at the age of 20 and spent most of his ruling years conducting a lengthy military campaign throughout Western Asia, Central Asia, parts of South Asia, and Egypt. By the age of 30, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1] Pigay (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: There is no such thing as Greek kingdom, nor ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon, only amcient kingdom of Macedonia (present-day Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, rtc.) and Greek city-states of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc.
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Pigay: your account is autoconfirmed, so you can edit the article yourself now. RudolfRed (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Undefeated". Alexander was in fact defeated[edit]

Its not true that Alexander was undefeated. After Alexander occupied Samarkand he fought a battle against Alp Ërin from the Turkish Commonwealth. And his army is defeated by Alp Ërin and Alexander flees. I will give much more in depth information after I create a page for Alp Ërin. But for now see the Bolbol Uqus work of Alp Ërin (Ongin inscription). HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this Ongin Inscription? Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But that page is filled with wrongs since no proper reading has been done. And the translation also doesnt make any sense. Not to forget to mention; the Turkish calendar which is used in this inscription is also fully ignored. Anyone who knows Kazakh and Turkish will now what 'yïlqa' means. I can read old Turkic myself and also have the proper translations done by Mehmet Kömen, Haluk Tarcan and Kazım Mirşan please message my telegram=Jesse Kruitman. HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More pseudo-history. You have already been told of the rules, please read them. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to HistoryofIran's input above, perhaps consider removing your personal information. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would believe the National Geographic Society over the use HiddenRealHistory19, which says that "Alexander was a skilled general who did not lose a single battle."
(see https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/macedonia/) Pigay (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander ofcourse was a skilled general. Not only skilled but one of the greatest of all, but what everyone ignores is the existance of a Turkish Commonwealth from 800s BC to 500s AC. So this Commonwealth also existed in the times of the Acheamenids, Macedonians and Romans. And this Commonwealth also left behind over 300+ inscriptions and even 5 historians who we know the names of ( Bïlge Atuñ Uquq from Tonyukuk inscriptions, Öküli Çur Tïgin together with Tört Tïgin who was killed and defeated by Darius from the Ihe Hüşotu inscription, Öñre Bıña Başı from Tariat and Sine-Usu inscriptions who beat Darius I.), (Alp Ërin from Ongin inscription who beat Alexander the Great), And there are also the "Yoluğ Tïgin". These are the Palace historians who keep a record of events for the Qagan. For example the Yoluğ Tïgin from the period of Kyros (Cyrus the Great) records a female Qatun from the Massagete (Tomyris!) who lost her son and seeks help from the Turkish Commonwealth's Qagan. She then gathers an army and defeats Cyrus his army. Now this record from Yoluğ Tïgin completely debunks the thinking that Tomyris defeating Cyrus is only a myth! Just like this, Öñre Bıña Başı, Alp Ërin, Çur Tïgin, Bïlge Atuñ Uquq and Tört Tïgin also all have records for Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great and Darius I. Thus these are very important sources for our world history!! Herodotus for example because of his lack of knowledge on the war between the Turkish Commonwealth and the Acheamenids records the conflict with Cyrus in a form of a story taile. Because he does not have the real direct knowledge about. Same counts for the war where Darius was involved. He does mention the Scythians going all the way down to the region of Gallipoli but since he does not own real accurate information again explains this event in a story like manner. So its very important for us to learn about the old Turkish calendar which has been used for 2092 years and accuratly read the inscriptions. Apart from that there's also alot of digging to do, because Öñre Bıña Başı also mentions in Sine-Usu he has 2 more inscriptions and 1 statue in honor of the Qagan and we also know the regions. It just never has been properly researched, please message my telegram for further questions and doubts!! I can provide all proofs you need brother. Telegram=Jesse Kruitman HiddenRealHistory19 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_the_Great&oldid=1226483918"