Talk:The Battle of Alexander at Issus

message: Can you cite Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article? Alekjds talk 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure, but I have seen it done before on Battle of Hurtgen Forest, the German losses are cited from the German wiki article on the battle.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There. See the references section. There I cite my references, and then also the ones from the Altdorfer article to actually validate my using of the Altdorfer article as a footnote ref. I hope this clears the matter up. --- ÅñôñÿMôús  Dîššíd3nt 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I could understand using Wikipedia as a source for casualty numbers, since the goal there would be to establish a sense of encyclopedia-wide consensus. Using it as a source, that is, like in this article, a major source of material, seems a bit redundant. Does anyone know of a policy to this effect? Alekjds talk 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cant ref wiki in any way. Thats why those refs are now gone. Thanks, --- ÅñôñÿMôús  Dîššíd3nt 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia sources 

message: I'm going to be honest: This could use a copyedit. While never awful, some parts are over-wordy or awkwardly-phrased. 
However, though the writing is not great, it's still reasonably good, and certainly it's a readable, informative article. In every other respect, this meets GA - it's factually accurate (to the best of my knowledge - certainly it's sourced), broad in coverage, NPOV, and reasonably stable. 
So, with some minor doubts, I'm going to promote this, however, if you could have another go-through and fix it so it reads a bit better, that would be for the best. Adam Cuerden talk 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have have another look over soon. Johnbod 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Hello A.D. I can't bring myself to post this to FAC because it's more commentary and possibly redundant of what has already been said. But take it as you will.
* It is a well-crafted article. The historical context of the subject is well presented (a little too detailed for my taste, but that's fine). I wish there was a bit more material placing the work in art history, though. I think I am basically repeating what has been said above [if I posted to FAC]. Any material that relates to and expands the final paragraph (currently, it is mostly quotations) is what I'm after. The following statement opens up a lot of ground in this regard, but I understand that it may not have been made with reference to this work specifically, or there may be no other material to add that supports it: According to Pia F. Cuneo, "Altdorfer's construction of landscape on a cosmic scale and his spiritual and aesthetic affinities with Romanticism and Modern art (in particular, German Expressionism) have been especially singled out for praise". The article would benefit from highlighting how the painting (er, Altdorfer) influenced these later movements.  But this is always a difficulty with these articles on artworks; you don't want to repeat the artist's legacy on each page about his painting (in principle; in practice it's valuable because the artist's page probably doesn't have it, sadly).  Also two small things: does the tablet "hang" (caption)? I like "suspended" better, as in the text, or "floats". The wording should not connect the tablet physically to the sky, IMO, as the tablet is a device that is really outside the scene. And super-fussy, was the quoted "Iliad" italicized in the source?  DOGRIGGR (deflea)  00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not much out there that I've found relating to where the artwork stands "in the scheme of things", aside from that quotation. It predates the Northern Renaissance slightly, and (as is mentioned) it was painted around the dawn of landscape. I'm not sure what else to say. There's this from Jan Brueghel the Elder in 1602, but I've only come across that by happenstance and don't know of any commentary tying it to Issus. I suppose it might be worth a look to find information on Altdorfer's legacy, though. Some portion of that would probably be relevant in the last section. Thanks for your comments. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's slap bang in the middle of the Northern Renaissance - 30 years after Durer became famous for example. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you're right. I always had it in mind that it started in the late sixteenth century, not fifteenth. I suppose, then, that we could add a bit on that. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC-related comment... 

message: The Art Bulletin publishes pieces by a wide range of academic art historians who cannot be called "of" it in the way employed staff-writers of other types of publication can. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? If he publishes for the Bulletin, he is "of" the Bulletin. These prepositions really don't have strikingly different denotations; I don't see why it's worth arguing about. "of" is standard for this kind of thing, so just leave it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In & of 

message: My suggested shorter Historical section (refs and links taken out)
=== Historical setting ===
Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BC), best known as Alexander the Great, was an Ancient Greek king of Macedon who reigned from 336 BC until his death. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest military tacticians and strategists in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. Renowned for his generalship and charisma, he always led his armies personally and took to the front ranks of battle. By conquering the Persian Empire and unifying Greece, Egypt and Babylon, he forged the largest empire of the ancient world.
Alexander embarked on his expedition to conquer the Persian Empire in the spring of 344 BC, after pacifying the warring Greek states and consolidating his military might. The first months of the Macedonian incursion, 40,000 strong, into Persian Asia Minor was ignored by the king of Persia, Darius III.  The Battle of the Granicus, fought in May, was Persia's first major effort to confront the invaders, but resulted in an easy victory for Alexander.  By early November, Alexander's army had conquered Persian territories up to Mallus.  The Macedonians followed along the Gulf of Issus, pushing through the city of Issus and towards Mryiandrus, a seaport on the southeastern shores of the Gulf of Iskenderun.  Meanwhile, Darius had raised an army of 100,000 (some ancient sources posit figures of over 600,000) and personally directed it over the eastern slopes of the Amanus Mountains, north of Issus, inadvertently ending up at the rear of the Macedonian army's advance and cutting its supply line.  Learning of the Persian threat, Alexander retraced his route the the Pinarus River, just south of Issus, and confronted Darius' force assembled along the northern bank.
At the start of the Battle of Issus, Darius assumed a defensive posture.  The river bank was staked to impeded the enemy's crossing.  Darius was at the centre of his army, guarded by Persian royal guard and Greek mercenaries.  A group of Persian light infantry was sent to protect the army's left flank on the foothills, and cavalry stood on its right flank.  Alexander made a cautious and slow advance.  He led his Companion cavalry on the right, and dispatched his Thessalian cavalry to attack the Persian's right flank.  He also sent a band of light infantry, archers, and cavalry to displace the Persian light infantry on the foothills.  The enterprise was promptly successful – those Persians not killed were forced to seek refuge higher in the mountains.
When within missile range of the enemy, Alexander gave the order to charge.  He and his heavily armed Companions cut deep into the Persian left flank.  The Macedonians' central phalanx crossed the river and clashed with the Greek mercenaries who fronted Darius' vanguard.  The left wing of the Macedonian army, however, was driven back by the large Persian cavalry force.  After crippling the Persian left wing, Alexander assaulted the Persian centre from the side.  Cracking under the assault from two fronts, the Persian vanguard was forced to withdraw from the river bank, allowing Macedonian phalanx to continue their advance and lift the pressure on the Macedonian left wing.  The Persian withdrawal turned into a rout, and many were killed, trampled by those who fled with them or collapsed with their horses.
Ancient sources present disparate casualty figures for the Battle of Issus. Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus approximate 100,000 Persian deaths, in contrast with the 450 Macedonian deaths reported by Quintus Curtius Rufus. Both estimations are doubtlessly coloured. In any case, it is probable that more Persians were killed in flight than in battle; Ptolemy I, who served with Alexander during the battle, tells of how the Macedonians crossed a ravine on the bodies of their enemies during the pursuit.  The Macedonian conquest of Persia continued until 330 BC, when Darius was killed and Alexander took his title as king.  Alexander died in 323 BC, after returning from a campaign in the Indian subcontinent.
=== End of suggestion ===
Might be of use, or not.  Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible shorter Historical section? 

message: Might be of use, or not.  Jappalang (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of suggestion 

message: As an overall piece of prose, this article stands among the better-written pieces on Wikipedia. It has flow and intellectual coherence, qualities that evade bot editing. One question: is the section on the Historical setting more detailed than it needs to be to illuminate the content of the painting? There is a link to the main article (which mentioned this painting but didn't link to this article), but I confess that after a quick look I found the section here more rewarding. Don't want to leave a comment on the article's FA candidacy, because I have nothing specific to say about those criteria. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nicely written, but one question 

message: This is a very nicely written article so far, although I agree that the historical setting section could stand to be trimmed a little. The major element I see lacking is a transcription of the huge floating inscription at the top of the painting- a transcription that is present in both the German version and the Spanish version of the article. It is given as follows:
ALEXANDER M(AGNVS) DARIVM ULT(IMVM) SVPERAT
CAESIS IN ACIE PERSAR(VM) PEDIT(VM) C(ENTVM) M(ILIBVS) EQUIT(VM)
VERO X M(ILIBVS) INTERFECTIS MATRE QVOQVE
CONIVGE; LIBERIS DARII REG(IS) CVM (M(ILLE) HAVD
AMPLIVS EQVITIB(VS) FVGA DILAPSI CAPTIS:
Because I don't speak Latin I've translated the German translation:
Alexander the Great defeats the last Darius, after 100,000  infantrymen and 10,000 cavalrymen had been killed in the Persian lines and the mother, wife, and children of Darius had been captured along with 1000 wildly fleeing cavalry.
Note that Darius is described as "den letzten Darius", which in German literally means "the last Darius" but can also mean "the dying Darius". I don't know if "ultimum" in Latin carries the same connotation, so I've left it as "last" for now.
Lithoderm 06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but we have a translation (in the "description" section) - the same, except with the escape of Darius himself. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I could've sworn I read that section, yet there it is... Lithoderm 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscription

message: Wood is wrong. I wrote among the first because as we know the Chinese and the Koreans and the Japanese were heavy at it prior to 1500, I added among the first, perhaps the first in Western art might work too...Modernist (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, he meant in Western art "since antiquity", obviously. It wouldn't be anything like the first globally, but I think that is clearly the context. The Chinese had been at it since the 7th century.  I've added a "Western" at the start of the section anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Johnbod, I think that works better - I don't think the differences are that obvious to every reader concerning Eastern art and Western art, and it helps for us to be specific...Modernist (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The first or not the first

message: "Altdorfer's piece was markedly different from its companions, particularly in that it was by far the most geographically accurate." Whether it is markedly different is arguable, but the main problem with this claim is later in the article the painting's geographical accuracy is called into question and also the other paintings don't attempt the same geographical scope, so their accuracy can't reasonably be compared.(and no one knows where Alesia is.). Does Silver back up this claim with any details? Yomanganitalk 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can recall. I agree that the correctness of the claim is compromised by the fact that the companions were not concerned with geographical accuracy. I'll review the wording just there and consider taking out that sentence. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical accuracy 

message: I was interested enough in the reference to the Nuremberg Chronicle to look up the relevant portion, which is here under LXXV recto. I've extracted the figures it refers to here, if it's of any use. More interestingly, the Chronicle account also mentions a mountain beside Tarsus, which it refers to as Thaurum. Alexander...zohe mit großer eyl vber den berg Thaurum vnd kom in die statt Tharsum: "Alexander... moved with great haste over the mountain Thaurum and arrived in the city Tharsus". It is possible that this is a reference to the Taurus Mountains (given their proximity to Tarsus), conflated by secondhand accounts into a single mountain. I don't have any references for this second point, of course, but it is interesting to consider. Lithoderm 06:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are also the depictions of Alexander and Darius from the Nuremberg Chronicle, if they're of any use. There is a more colorful version of Alexander here. And congrats, all, especially Anonymous Dissident. Lithoderm 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your interest, and for the pointer. For completeness, it may be worth including the name the Chronicle gives to the mountain rise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuremberg Chronicle

message: Well done A.D., Litho, Yomangan, Johnbod and everyone else...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: Let me repeat: The Battle is not the historical context of the painting. It is the historical context of the subject matter of the painting. Unless you are implying that the picture was painted, or at least, conceived, in the thick of the battle of Issus. Amandajm (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is "Historical context", not "Historical context of the painting". The latter is your own extrapolation. In any case, "context" is too abstract a noun for this kind of semantics to be meaningful. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Amanda. A section titled "Historical context" can reasonably be assumed to be about the historical context of the subject of the article. Amanda's extrapolation is the reasonable one. I don't know what you mean by saying that "context" is too abstract a noun for this kind of semantics to be meaningful. The meaning of the word is perfectly clear, as is Amanda's distinction between the painting and its subject matter. The section should be retitled: "Historical battle" is clear and informative to the reader. Srnec (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "A section titled "Historical context" can reasonably be assumed to be about the historical context of the subject of the article." That's what I'm saying, and not what Amanda is saying. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the subject of the article is the painting, not the battle.  But the subject of the section is the battle. The suggested change seems an improvement to me also. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. "Historical battle" is a terrible section title, and it does not properly encompass the material. My feeling is that you're being anal for no good reason. We now have "Historical setting" and "Background". Any reader with a modicum of intelligence will be able to divine that the former pertains to the historical events, and that the latter pertains to the background of the artist and of artistic depictions of the battle. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A section with a mainarticle hatnote to Battle of Issus and that describes nothing but that historical event and its context is not "properly encompassed" by the title "Historical battle"? How could these intelligent readers figure out that "Historical context" refers to the historical context not of the painting (subject of the article) but of the thing painted, but that "Background" refers not to the history that is behind the act of painting (i.e. the historical events depicted) but rather to the background of the commission to paint? This isn't being anal. It's reading comprehension, like from elementary school. Srnec (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Historical" is the key word. The section does not concern just the battle. Don't change it back to that. I'd sooner having "Historical background of subject". Just give me the rest of the day to think of a title. If I haven't by then, I'll bow down to consensus. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: In the second paragraph of the Historical setting it states "Alexander embarked on his expedition to conquer the Persian Empire in the spring of 344 BC". I know he was a precocious little devil, but this means he was at it when only 12 years old. Presumably this should be 334 BC?--Quentin Durward (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agh, yes. Thanks for picking up on that. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Battle of Alexander at Issus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604061317/http://www.pinakothek.de/alte-pinakothek/sammlung/kuenstler/kuenstler_inc_en.php?inc=bild&which=8303 to http://www.pinakothek.de/alte-pinakothek/sammlung/kuenstler/kuenstler_inc_en.php?inc=bild&which=8303
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified