Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 11

message: The last sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Alexander's Body" is a bit vague. Would abybody mind adding a bit of detail to it? Cloudbreath9 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander's Body 

message: The article says in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II , but the article on Nebuchadrezzar II says he lived around 300 years too early for that.
Or was the palace always called the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II even after he died? 172.214.109.252 00:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whered he die then? 

message: Macedonia was the land of the greeks till 900AD when the slavic tribes settled there. Many "modern" macedonians (Bulgarians) are simply and unsuccessfully trying to re-write history. Alexander the Great was the Greek King of Macedon
:You are a retarded, ignorant, sub-intelligent idiot, with know knowledge of history or logic. Macedonians were never Greek, Alexander the Great was a Macedonian King, how else can Macedonians be called Macedonians, when Alexander's empire was called Macedon. Its idiots like you that like to re-write history.
Gosh they don't teach you much in Bulgaria, woops I meant the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
: To the person who wrote the second (the reply) paragraph. You who call yourself Macedonian. No matter the subject, please refrain yourself from writing in this way. Even you can act respectfully against other people's opinion. Besides, if you believe that you are Macedonian, writing like this makes you only acting in disgrace to the very foundation of the ancient Macedonian civilization. Although not Greek myself, but scholar of Balkan history, I must admit that scholars throughout the ages, since the very time of Alexander, never regarded Alexander as anything else but part of the Hellenic civilization. To connect him with the slavic civilization - no matter what its status - is absurd. Usually, and you may forgive me if I am wrong, people lately claiming to be Macedonians but are not Greeks have a slavic origin. If so then, it is importnat to demark the fact that the southern slavic tribes who entered the area of ancient Macedonia at about 600 AD (at Byzantine time) does not make any of their decendants (you) decendants of the ancient Macedonians. It may not even make the currently Greek population in the southern part direct decendants because most of them made it back to Greece from Asia Minor after the exchange. But, from a historical and cultural point of view they are, not you, far more connected to the ancient Macedonians than you as their are part of Hellenic civilization and its continuation (no matter how Greece and Greeks are perceived today).
:Meanwhile, your antihellenism - because what you are showing is antihellenism - I believe, is based on something else, and there perhaps you might have a point. During the exchange of population between the countries of Greece and Turkey, the Greek nation resettled Greeks from Minor Asia in the northern parts of Greece. That happened after the Greek-Turkish war. Some years before that however, more precisely in 1912 when Greece reconquered the northern parts including Salonica from the falling Ottoman Empire, Greece forced the removal of what at that time was referred to as Bulgarians. Some parts of this (not all however) population call themselves, especially after 1945, Macedonians. That you are angry against the Greek government of that time is understandable. Any forcefully conducted removal of population causes great suffering. Both the Greek and the Turkish population went through similarly rough removals and resettlements. But, that does not entitle you any connection what-so-ever to any claim of yours of you being decendant of Alexander III. It is beyond any reason. And reason is not only on one side. Always remember that if your story is completely black, there must be some white spots as well. Thus, your enemy's understanding of Alexander the Great, surely must have some white spots as well. Find them!
:I think it is important to see the real causes behind your action, beyond any natinoalistic action, whether Greek or yours. Because, ultimately, this highly antagonistic stance that you and your fellow followers impose on history - besides on Greece and on your country - will only lead to one thing only: War - the fall of reason, the loss of humanity. Neither you want that, nor the other side I believe (besides some nationalists on both sides). I have been there personally myself, served in the Gulf War, and believe me, you don't want that! There is far more that connects you two people than what divides you. You lived with each other for almost 1600 years! And, according to my own understanding, after having visited the cities of Florina, Veria, Thessaloniki, Serres, Skopje, Bitola, Strumica and Ochrid (5 years!) to conduct interviews for my research and collect other kind of evidence, I did not come across any hostile understanding what-so-ever on both sides regarding each other. You are basically the same. You show equal affection to your relatives and to strangers and you share religion and basically the same culture on almost all points (instituions, festivals, food, dance, music etc.). The largest differences are your separate languages and perhaps political history of your countries. Show the world that it is possible for you to co-exist! (User:P.Dubois]] 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great poisoned 

message: West Nile Virus is listed as a possible cause of death, yet the page for West Nile Virus says "Studies of phylogenetic lineages have determined that WNV emerged as a distinct virus around 1000 years ago." One of these must be wrong. Infinitejpower 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  The entire section needs to be sourced, and this claim especially (it's pretty outlandish), if it is to stay in. CaveatLectorTalk 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well I found a source for the West Nile claim in the page history; at some point it must have been taken out for some reason. I read the source and it seemed credible enough to warrant listing West Nile as at least a possibility.Infinitejpower 06:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Nile virus as cause of death? 

message: The so-called "Alexander Sarcophagus," discovered near Sidon and now in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, is now generally thought to be that of Abdylonymus, whom Hephaestion had appointed as the king of Sidon by Alexander's order.
. . . Only, the article about the sarcophagus says it probably isn't. Someone who knows more about the subject than I do needs to correlate the two articles. --Michael K. Smith 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarcophagus question

message: Alexander invaded India but not modern India, He invaded what was then India but what is now PAKISTAN. He never went beyond Pakistani Punjab and never entered the actual land that consists of India today.
Someone keeps changing back my edits on the title of the 'Invasion of India.'
Currently it says 'Invasion of India' and 'After India'
It should be 'Invasion of India (Present-day Pakistan)' and 'After India' can stay as it is.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noorkhanuk85 (talk • contribs). 
It is often said that Alexander did not invade beyond present day Pakistan because his Army felt homesick. It is also said that he defeated Porus, the Indian King but granted a pardon after defeat and made him an ally. I would like to question the validity of the above mentioned facts. 
Why would not Alexander go beyond present day Pakistan and why would he make friends with Porus? Just to say to that he felt homesick, would be very childish. It would also be false to justify that he made freinds with Porus after defeating him. This just does not sounds right. This thought seems to be projected by a pro-western revisionist scholar.
This could be better explained by fact that Alexander was defeated by Porus and prevented him from going further into India.
:Great! That means there is an Indian account of Alexander's invasion. Wonderful! I hadn't heard. Please point to it so we can read it. (You said westerners had revised it, as I recall). Student7 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The invasion of India 

message: The references to Alexander in the Book of Daniel, although they do not use the name "Alexander", clearly refer to him. The question of whether or not Daniel was a prophet or historian is best left to the page on the Book of Daniel itself. Simply deleting all references to the Book of Daniel in this page (as has happened twice) appears to be little more than censorship. 
DrBEngineer 20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in the Bible 

message: Please correct me if I'm wrong,but before Alexander died did'nt he have plans set in place to invade and conquer Arabia?I don't say he was not planning to conquer Western Europe but is there any contemporary or near contemporary evidence for one or the other being his immediate aim?--Sandbagger 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabia 

message: The article says:
“According to one legend, Alexander was preserved in a clay vessel full of honey (which can act as a preservative) and interred in a glass coffin. According to Aelian (Varia Historia 12.64), Ptolemy stole the body and brought it to Alexandria, where it was on display until Late Antiquity. It was here that Ptolemy IX, one of the last successors of Ptolemy I, replaced Alexander's sarcophagus with a glass one, and melted the original down in order to strike emergency gold issues of his coinage. The citizens of Alexandria were outraged at this and soon after Ptolemy IX was killed. Its current whereabouts are unknown.“
My question is: If Alexander’s sarcophagus was melted down and turned into emergency gold coins, how could its whereabouts be known? Seems like that sentence should be struck. Or is there something I don’t understand about it?
Jgmccue 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander’s sarcophagus 

message: I reverted Bucephala's earlier sentence today because as it stands, it just is not notable. One could presumably say the same for many other figures in history as well, but that does not mean it needs to be in an encyclopedia article on them without further explanation as to why it is important. If this is indeed something central to Alexander or to his later legend (maybe it is the main theme for medieval stories about him or something), then I would be in favor of keeping it in, but only provided that there are additional references to those stories. But as it is, it reads as a tenuous opinion without anything to back it up. I see that it has been un-reverted; I will not revert any further, but I think it needs more support to stand as it is. Mlouns 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if you need references, I'll provide them. But it is not true that that sentence can be applied to any historical figure. Alexander didn't rape his captives nor treated women in a rude way, as Plutarch mainly comments. This is obviously strange for a conqueror, who might well do what he wanted with them due to his position. Next time, remember to write "sources required" after a sentence you doubt of instead of deleting it. Oh, and by the way, the sentence wasn't written by me, I just put it back since I consider it to contain an important fact of Alexander's personality. Greetings --Bucephala 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry not to give more of an explanation for the revert -- I'll have to do that better next time, especially for a non-anon editor. Cheers! Mlouns 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, Mlouns, you were taking care of WP:NPV and I respect and admire that ;) I'll copy here the source that has probably inspired the sentence. The paragraph is from Plutarch's Moralia, book 2, about "the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great", section 6:
There are more sources that deal with Alexander's kind behavior towards his lovers, but in my opinion, Plutarch's the one that states it more clearly and that's why I used him. Hope this clarifies what the original writer meant by the questioned sentence. Greetings --Bucephala 21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent "Personal Life" statement 

message: The moderation of Alexander and his courteous treatment of Darius' harem was a trope for hagiographers annd biographers, and furnished a subject for paintings. It more deserves mention here than the fact that OliverStone did not depict the battle of Issus. --Wetman 09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Moderation of Alexander

message: How Alexander is great?
The warlords were great at that time.But not now; no one call George W.Bush as George W.Bush the Great. He may be a good warrior, but not believable that a great ruler. If it was the foundation of Alexandria that he contributed a lot to spread of knowledge, then why Aristotle or Thales, such great thinkers are not called 'the Great'. It should be changed to Alexander of Macedonia. Alexander the Great is a title of racism. Since he has defeated a lot of kings of Asia it just want to show that he (a representative of Europeanism) is superior to all other people. It is immediate, because thousands and thousands of people trust Wikipedia and don't give them wrong information.
--203.129.207.10 07:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying? Please, learn a little bit about Alexander before writing here, and besides, this is not a forum, so, if everyone agrees, I'm going to delete your comments, which have nothing to do with the article. Do you think that if Alexander were a racist, his first aim would have been mixing the Persian race with the Greek race? Have you read about the Susa weddings? You haven't, I suppose. You also seem to ignore that he maintained a profound relationship with Bagoas, and Darius' family. And he admired Persians for their noble personality. He was called "Magnus" (great) by the Romans because Alexander, at the age of 32, had conquered the known world without even losing a battle, because he is a military genius, and had all those qualities a Roman man had to have: courage, honor, and magnanimity, to name a few.  Next time you feel like doing a stupid comparison such as "Alexander=Bush" (if only Bush had Alexander's intelligence...), stop, think and read. --Bucephala 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Alexander is great? 

message: This article is very unencoyclopedic, although its fun to see the term 'Ultimate comeback' sounds like it was written by a teenager, the article is not written in a scholarly way. Also (I have nothing invested in this I believe today's  Macedon and that of 2000 years ago are different, and am British) Alexander the Great was a Macedonian king, macedonians had a distinct kingdom and language, and were treated as a lesser race by Greeks (as they evidently are today, looking up the page). ALexander the Great was criticized as veing a barbarian because of his Macedonian origins, the fact that he wished to 'hellenise' the world was simply because he viewed Macedon and Greece as both subscribers to hellenistic culture, although they were seperate Kingdoms and he pretended nothing else.Rob.G.P.A 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to explain ad nauseam that Macedonia was part of Greece? Besides, Rob, teach us how to write in an "scholarly" manner and give references to your statements (that is, references from reputed Alexandrists like R.L. Fox), because at least we have provided references in this "unencyclopedic" article.  --Bucephala 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Ultimate comeback' 

message: As it is basically always the case in Wikipedia, ancient Greek names are mostly given their modern Greek forms. Wouldn't it be more consistent to indicate the correct, proper Ancient Greek names? Till now, I refrained on all occasions from correcting the forms given in every article I met, but I guess we could sometime treat the Greek topics the way Hebrew ones are treated Without falling into the same trap, i.e. giving systematically the Biblical form, even for strictly modern terms… — Lemon Blue 09:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which names are you talking about, exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Greek instead of Modern forms? 

message: greetings,
I just clicked over to this page to check a fact, and noticed a bit of obvious vandalism--something to the effect that a fellow named Alex Lorenzo loves hairy men. I immediately hit "edit this page" to delete it, but noticed it was not there in the edit window. Figuring it had already been reverted, I went back to the article and refreshed it just to make sure--and it was still there. This cycle repeated itself several times...is something wrong in the system, or am I just up too late and seeing things?
he is a lil dicked baby  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.66.3 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert-resistant vandalism, or what? 

message: Google does not seem to return any relevant hits for "Bocephia" (or "Bucephia"), which the article claims to be a city named after Alexander's horse. Misspelled maybe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.203.162.177 (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misspelling, it seems it's Bucephalus. El Greco(talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City name misspelled? 

message: Why is this article listed in "The Contest's" rticles for improve ment? Kaeso Dio (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article about an important historical person that badly needs improvement. Beyond that, I can't say. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that it was a featured article but has lost that status. Kaeso Dio (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a bunch of articles on that list, what makes this one stand out? El Greco(talk) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest