# Talk:Alexander the Great

His is fake history, who is this uneducated person who meke this fake history of Alexander The great, he was Macedonian not Greek, Greek did not exist in the time when Alexander was alive and he was Macedonian,and Hellenes were small tribes and they were not Important,and Macedonian king Alexander Conquer the world, And greeks just Stole Macedonian history because greeks did not have any history before 20Century. They have no history and all that they Presents like there history is actually Macedonian history. This person who made this need to be Suspended for make fake history. 89.185.220.125 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia wasn't ethnically similar to Northern Macedonia (the modern state). Anyway, the best evidence for a Greek conquest in that Ancient Greek became the lingua franca of many countries. Not Latin, as we'd expect from countries conquered by the Roman Empire. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

How many people died due to Alexander?  Especially, how many were killed when Alexander's armies pillaged? Acwilson9 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

At the moment, this section looks unfinished. There is a lot of debate about Alexander's pigmentation features, but this article hardly resolves them and contains a collection of statements that somewhat contradict each other. Does it make sense to add some kind of general summation of his probable appearance? We actually have a few images of Alexander that deserve a mention:
1. The Tomb of Philip II fresco. This is the most reliable evidence we have, as it is a lifetime portrait. It depicts a man with white skin, brownish hair and dark eyes. This should be considered the baseline for any realistic reconstruction of Alexander. 
2. The Lion hunt's mosaic from Pella, probably posthumous (dated to 325-300 BC). This mosaic uses a pretty limited palette. The unnatural dead-white skin and yellow hair are artistic exaggerations or stylizations, but they probably hint at a underlying tendency towards lighter features, enough for artists to feel the need to emphasize them. Another mosaic from Pella, Stag Hunt one, possibly depicts Alexander and is executed in the same style.
3. The Alexander Mosaic. This is a high-quality Roman copy of a likely Greek original painting from the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. This mosaic does not contradict other sources, as many people think. His hair is depicted as brownish with light stripes, which clearly indicates that it was not black or dark brown, but closer to light brown or dark blond. This aligns perfectly with the Greek word "xanthos" used by Aelian. "Xanthos" does not mean Scandinavian light blond, it meant light hair in a Mediterranean context, it covered a spectrum from medium or light brown to blond and red. The depiction of sun-tanned facial skin versus a white neck is a masterful detail showing the artist's intention to portray realism. It corroborates Plutarch's description of a "fairness" of skin that would redden easily in the sun. His eyes are depicted as brown, the fact that no ancient historian made a special note of his eye color strongly suggests they were an unremarkable, dark color common in the region (that famous Arrian's quote about heterochromia that is found on the Internet is a fabrication).
4. The Alexander Sarcophagus. This is another highly reliable source, created by Sidonian craftsmen for a client who knew Alexander personally. It consistently shows Alexander with reddish-brown hair, white skin, and brown eyes, so in line with other sources. Noteworthy that both the Alexander Mosaic and the Alexander sarcophagus depict Bucephalus with blue eyes, so the palette allowed it.
In total, we can be pretty sure that his skin was white, maybe paler than a typical southern European. His hair is the most controversial part, it was definitely light by Mediterranean standards, most likely either light brown, reddish, or dark blond (perhaps it was light brown, red or dark blond in his youth and then naturally darkened). His eyes were almost certainly brown. 
What do you think, does it make sense to rewrite the section in any way? I also wonder if anyone has come across a similar conclusion in a book by some researcher or art historian. 
Becarefulbro (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Like the years of his reign look like they're the wrong way around, like they're listed as "336 - 326BC" ect ect. Is it meant to be that way or is it an oversight? Amber1138 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you calling that the wrong way round? The first year of his reign should be before the last year of his reign, shouldn't it? 336BC came before 326BC. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah wait yeah, BC isn't counted like AD years, yeah makes sense gotcha Amber1138 (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

HistoryTruths 🛡️🐘
King Porus( Purushottam), literally crushed Alexander with his mighty war elephants in the Battle of Hydaspes (326 BCE).
But to protect Alexander’s reputation, Greek historians twisted the story — calling it a “victory” and claiming he returned because of “illness” and “soldiers’ fatigue.”
Those tales that Alexander “admired Porus,” “treated him like a king,” and “returned his kingdom” are nothing but made-up Greek stories to save face.
In truth, Purushottam crushed the so-called world conqueror, forcing him to retreat and never return to Bharat again. 🇮🇳🔥

Porus #Purushottam #BattleOfHydaspes #RealHistory #Bharat #IndianPride #TruthOfHistory
~2025-32080-79 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)