Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 4

message: Was Alexander ever defeated in a battle in his lifetime? --Tykell 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence he really thought himself a god.  That was an honour bestowed on him, but whether or not he really believed it is unknown.  He may have thought himself truly a descendant of Heracles, but that's something completely different.  Biff Loman 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander's Defeats? 

message: I think the word Greek (as in Greek soldiers) should be removed (or clarified further) as there did not exist a 'Greece' per se in the ancient times. There were, as we all know, only the Hellenic City-States. It is therefore innapropriate to make claims such as 'Greek and non-Greek' soldiers, when at the time there was no 'Greek' entity/country. I also believe the mention that Macedonia was a part of classical Greece is again misleading as there did not exist a Classical Greece only the Hellenic City-States. This is also an issue that is up for a lot of debate (especially between today's Greeks and Macedonians) and I believe it should be more ambiguous, rather than seem politically biased. - Analyst. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.10.17 11:56, October 25, 2005 (talk • contribs) .
According to Arrianos, after the battle at Granicos river, three hundered shields accompanied by an inscription were sent to Athens and presented at Parthenon. The inscription read "Alexandros Philippoy and the Greeks except for the Lacedaemonians". I would say they would know better whether Greek soldiers should be referred to as a single entity. One could also notice how Macedonians are not named separately. There are also numerous references to Greeks as a single entity already centuries before that (famously and a personal favourite, Aeschylos "Ω ΠΑΙΔΕΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΙΤΕ", "Oh! sons of Greece, march!"). --Cangelis 13:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the word Greek (as in Greek soldiers) should be removed 

message: the first paragraph says alexander the great conquered most of the "known" world.   this is completely ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.233.55 (talk • contribs) 03:57, November 5, 2005 (UTC).
It is indeed ridiculous. Alexander's territory expanded until he ran into part of the rather larger Persian Empire, at which point he ground to a halt. After he died, the Persians took much of what was lost back. Their empire continued... The Real Walrus 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a wiki article for the known world? (according to classic antiquity, to Chinese etc). +MATIA  ☎ 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the "known" world??

message: "Alexandros Filippou Makedonon" meant Alexander son of Philip the Macedon but I'm not sure about the exact hellenic version. +MATIA  ☎ 13:54, November 9, 2005 (UTC)
I just saw http://www.engonopoulos.gr/_homeEL/painting.oil.triplo6.html - Alexander had written a message sending 300 shields to Athens "Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων". +MATIA  ☎ 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This should mean "Alexander [son] of Philip and the Greeks except the Spartans". Any idea if it compares in a book or is an inscription? Aldux 15:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My english aren't very good - yes, when I wrote message I mean an inscription accompanying the shields - I'll reply when I find a relevant source. +MATIA  ☎ 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander son of Philip 

message: Let me begin by saying that I am from the part of India (east of River Beas) where Alexander
supposedly stopped and his army mutinied.  Now, I see that on  the "Alexander"  page on wiki,
a bold claim of "CONQUEST of INDIA" is made. It is wrong at so many levels. Firstly, most
of you guys editing this page are probably Europoean or of similar origin, so go ahead say
whatever you feel like.
But mind you, there will "soon" be a billion people in India reading Wikipedia, and they are 
not going to be very impressed  by this state of affair.
As you all know the historical accounts which you so confidently rely on were written 300 ot
more years later, thousands of miles away from where the incidents happened. We already know
what kinds of fanciful tales Herodotus had to tell : "semen of people in india is black" !!
So, I wouldnt pay too much credence to these ancient great historians. If you want to
say things like there was a battle with Porus, that is fine. But do not go outright claiming victory, as that account was told 300-400 years later sitting way back in Greece. The accounts
we know of in Punjab (and in other texts) is totally different. And who knows whether that
was a mutiny or Alexander actually got his lunch served. 
As for those coins you depict, how sure are you that they are from Pakistan. Maybe they are from
the Persian war, where also Elephants were employed. Also, you say the guy being attacked is 
Porus??? Were you there, witnessing the battle?
And how about this article claiming totally different accoutn based on Ethiopic Texts
translated by E. A. W. Badge
http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593
Signed: ustadny
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ustadny (talk • contribs) 06:40, November 18, 2005.
:You're nuts.  No, Alexander didn't conquer all of India (which wasn't unified at the time anyway).  He conquered part of what is now Pakistan.  That's fact.  It wasn't made up centuries later.  We don't have any documents from Alexander's time, but ancient historians writing centuries later (like Arrian) had shitloads of them to draw upon.  Get your facts straight.  By the way, that comment about there being "soon" one billion Indians...what's up with that?!  Even if all them believed as you do (which I doubt), it doesn't matter how many people believe something if it's not true.  Although most of history is open to interpretation at some level, that doesn't mean it's okay to depart completely from fact.  Biff Loman 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's what they've been doing in India nowadays? Okay. Now we know. Interesting link, by the way. But before dumping large sections of dubious text into Alexander the Great's article, how about you guys start an article on the Ethiopic document in question, which was probably translated nearly a century ago by E. A. Wallis Budge, the Egyptologist? The Ethiopian texts are historical documents in a sense, whether they are wrong or right, and what they have to say should be mentioned in Wikipedia---somewhere. But don't expect to change the article to "Alexander the Ordinary", because it will remain at Alexander the Great. Cutting off noses and ears doesn't make a man less Megas ;) . Alexander 007 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "But don't expect to change the article to "Alexander the Ordinary", because it will remain at Alexander the Great." It is important that we seperate the legendary Alexander from the historical Alexander as best we can. Otherwise we might as well be repeating legends about Alexander travelling to the bottom of the sea in a glass bubble, and other wild tales. --- Zeno of Elea 22:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I fully agree about discerning legend from history. I want provocative additions to the article to be made carefully. A separate article should be started for the Ethiopian texts (once the Budge translation is at hand), and it can be linked to after a brief summary. But the last User started a large section on it in the main article. (By the way, wasn't the dude's name E. A. Wallis Budge, not "E.A.W. Badge", as Ustadny's link says? hmm...) Alexander 007 22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: While the extant accounts of Alexander's conquests date from 300 (in the case of Diodorus) to 450 (in the case of Arrian and Plutarch) years after Alexander, it is completely unjust to pretend that they are legends.  Arrian based his account closely on two primary sources of Alexander's campaigns - the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, both of whom were on the campaign.  Arrian also cites his sources fairly closely, so that we have quite a good idea of Ptolemy's whole narrative, and also of where Aristobulus differs from it.  Diodorus and Quintus Curtius's accounts are largely based on the work of Cleitarchus, who was not himself on campaign with Alexander, but who was a contemporary and clearly spoke to people who were.  Cleitarchus's account, it should be added, is clearly unfavorable to Alexander.  If Alexander was beaten at the Hydaspes, one would expect that Cleitarchus would have said so, and that this version would have appeared in Diodorus or Quintus Curtius.  On the contrary, Cleitarchus, as depicted in Diodorus, clearly shows that Alexander was victorious, as do all the other classical sources.  As far as separating the legendary Alexander from the historical Alexander, I fully agree.  Which is why we ought to respect the universal judgment of the classical narratives and of professional ancient historians, rather than changing the article to suit the arguments of a completely unsourced article on a dubious website. john k 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The present anon. editor is the same who is now trying to put the same nationalistic views in Porus, Purushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River. I have tried to explain him that wikipedia does not exist to be a safe haven for all sort of nationalists, so if any one has some time please monitor the three said articles, and consider partecipating to the discussion going on at Talk:Porus. Thanks! Aldux 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of India? 

message: I know many Greeks like to see their ethnonym as often as possible in the intro of this article, but since Greece links to an article about the "Hellenic Republic", saying "Pella, Macedon, Greece" makes about as much sense as "Pella, Macedon, Greece, European Union" (viz., it is an anachronism). Macedon is the proper designation of the historical state Pella was the capital of. Whether Macedon was part of some entity that may be called "Greece" (e.g. the Greek peninsula) is to be explored on the Macedon article. It certainlly wasn't part of the "Hellenic Republic", which was founded in AD 1829. dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Greece]]

message: No Question exists. Alexander the Great was Greek, born in the Greek State; Macedon, which is in no way affiliated or made as reference to modern day skopje (FYROM)  :User:211.30.210.219 moved by Alf melmac 14:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: To Aldux, who reverted my changes, the text of the email that I sent to you.
Hi,
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. That being the case, the knowledge that Alexander's Indian exploits are disputed by Indian historians based on Indian texts should be made available. If you felt that my words were nationalistic in nature, you could have edited it as such, rather than reverting it completely.
The fact remains that much of current Indian history revolves around the time of Alexander's invasion, which is accurately determined. What is being disputed is: who was the Indian king/emperor during Alexander's invasion. The current version is that it was Chandragupta Maurya. Some Indian historians dispute it & claim that it was the time of Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II. The truth of what exactly happened here determines the entire Indian history itself, since it disputes a date range of around 1500 years.
It is important that the version that Alexander was victorious in India & the king ruling India at that time is disputed by some segments, and this knowledge ought to be made available.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Regards,
Saiswa
Actual changes that were reverted
Alexander's Indian exploits are primarily documented based on Megasthenes' Indica and is disputed by some Indian historians. The date of Alexander's invasion is currently used to document Indian history, based on Megasthenes' reference to Sandrokotus & Sandrokipten. The current generally accepted version is that Chandragupta Maurya was the Indian emperor during Alexander's invasion. This has been disputed by Indian historians based on Indian records and discrepancies in Megathenes' accounts (including no reference to Chanakya, Chandragupta's powerful minister), who claim that it was probably Samudragupta & Chandragupta II who were reigning during that time, bringing Chandragupta Maurya's reign to around the much earlier 1500 BC. The same Indian historians claim that Alexander was probably defeated by the powerful Indian empire at that time, during which war he incurred the grievous injury, and that the Indica chose not to document this, which would puncture Alexander's aura.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Saiswa (talk • contribs) 16:02, December 18, 2005 (UTC).
:No legitimate historians actually believe that Alexander and Seleucus were contemporaries of the Gupta dynasty.  This is crackpot stuff, and shouldn't appear in our article. john k 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as we are entering the 21st century, many Indian "scholars" are still stuck in the dream history set down in the Puranas, where anything respectable has been dust for at least 5,000 years. This stuff has no place in a reasonable encyclopedia except in an article on Indian sociology. "NPOV" does not mean that every crackpot view gets an equal voice. dab (ᛏ) 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The present anon. editor is the same who is now trying to put the same nationalistic views concerning the Battle of the Hydaspes River in Porus, Purushottama, Battle of the Hydaspes River. I have tried to explain him that wikipedia does not exist to be a safe haven for all sort of nationalists, so if any one has some time please monitor the three said articles, and consider partecipating to the discussion going on at Talk:Porus. Thanks! Aldux 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Indian History 

message: I know Greeks will be furious and Macedonians will be too. But I'm Macedonian so take this from me. Alexander first of all he loved Hephastion in a homosexual way (which was common then) second of all he loved is horse in the same way too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arvand (talk • contribs) 03:15, January 16, 2006 (UTC).
It is very strongly implied that Alexander had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion, but it is not, to my knowledge, ever actually spelled out literally.
As for Bucephalus, his horse, what you claim is very far from historical basis.  We know that he loved his horse...as a HORSE.  Bucephalus had been with him for the entirety of his campaign, had stayed true to him the entire time, and was possibly Alexander's deepest comrade in his conquests.  This does not imply that he had sexual relations with his horse, he simply recognized the danger that Bucephalus went into for his sake and loved his 'pet' for the unwaivering devotion.
--Galileo 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone found any references to Alexanders supposide beastiality, becuase i'd doubt that there would be.--Fabio 04:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know Greeks will be furious

message: I have a concern that the section about Alexander's character seems to be showing him as a crazy guy obsessed with taking over the world.  While that may be a consensus among the majority of historians, a minority consider Alexander to be one of the greatest rulers the world has ever seen.  His rule was a significant improvement for the people of the Middle East in the areas of freedom, liberty and human rights in general and he was known for having been tolerant of the Jews.  I'm going to wait to edit the text of the section until we can reach a consensus.
Eclipse KOG 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually he was obsessed with taking over the world, specially the Persian Empire. Also, he's rule was not IMPROVEMENT for middle east, at least not for Persia. He sacked and destroyed many cities of Persia, including Persepolis, the capital of Persian Empire. (66.36.158.213 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Alexander's Character biased? 

message: I haven't yet settled on the best way to phrase the sentences that Macedonia changed, but his version is inaccurate. In the first place, the fact that Alexander integrated Greeks in his army is not something notable, since Philip also did this. What is notable is that he integrated non-Macedonians, non-Greeks to a degree previously unseen; so saying "integrating non-Macedonians" is inaccurate. Alexander 007 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Aldux's edits on this topic. But to quote someone above: "I know Greeks will be furious" when I quote these passages that give us an insight into Macedonian/Greek relations in Hellenistic times (these quotes pertain to things happening in Greece): from Plutarch's Aratus of Sicyon biography: "or if he thought the Achaean affairs desperate, to have yielded all up to Cleomenes, and not to have let Peloponnesus fall once again into barbarism with Macedonian garrisons, and Acro-Corinthus be occupied with Illyric and Gaulish soldiers..."; "Cleomenes may have been arbitrary and tyrranical, yet he was descended from the Heraclidae, and Sparta was his country, the obscurest citizens of which deserved to be preferred to the generalship before the best of the Macedonians by those that had any regard to the honour of Grecian birth."---I got more quotes like this, but that's enough to show that even after all Alexander did, the Greeks still, generally speaking, seem to have resented the Macedonians for awhile. Alexander 007 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, what does this tell us about the "Macedonians were Dorians" theory? :) Alexander 007 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "East and west" strikes me as an arbitrary division.  What kind of cultural distinctions do we want to draw the reader's attention to here?  Further, "Macedonian and Greek settlements" is likely to leave the reader with the inaccurate idea that there were two distinct types of post-Alexandrian settlements, which is saying either too little or too much.  Jkelly 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonia's edits

message: Since edits of this type are often placed in the article, and invariably removed, a brief explanation of the removal follows: the dispute concerning the Greekness or non-Greekness etc. of the ancient Macedonians is a dispute among scholars---historians, linguists, etc.---and it predates the political claims and ethnic claims of the Macedonians (ethnic group), so 84.254.6.165's edits are vastly droll and irrelevant, as well as POV clap-trap. Alexander 007 02:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a bibliography at the moment, but K. O. Müller in 1825 for example suggested that the Ancient Macedonian language was "an Illyrian dialect mixed with Greek". And there are many more early examples. It's an old scholarly debate which continues. Alexander 007 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:84.254.6.165|84.254.6.165]]'s edits

message: Shouldn't it be "Alexander III of Macedonia", since "the great" was a posthumous epithet?
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 06:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Most people are going to be searching (whether on google or in a Wiki search or whatever) for Alexander the Great, thus the most common name in English is preferred. Alexander 007 06:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently added this succession number to the internal headline and appropriate Greek transliteration. Brandmeister 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titling 

message: It seems someone is deliberately ommiting these important authors for the sole reason that they portay Alexander as a heterosexual. For example, Plutarch clearly states that his only true love was Roxana whom he fell in love with instantly. There is nothing that mentions Alexnader being invloved with males. 
Second, most scholars have agreed that Arrianus Flavius was the most reliable source about Alexander. He along with Plutarch were the only authors who wrote about Alexander using original sources. Curtius on the other hand used second hand sources (at least). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.169.126 (talk • contribs) 00:30, February 7, 2006  (UTC)
:Quick answer to this one.  If the unsigned contributer above would like to register as a user, he or she would be free to add such quotes to the article.  Personally, I think the article puts the evidence and different viewpoints in a balanced way.  It is very difficult to know what 'floated the boat' of an individual who died millenia ago, so the issue will probably never be resolved. Indisciplined 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there not any quotes from Plutarch, Arrian or Diodurus posted about Alexander's sexuality? 

message: I've got sources for that. It was after the Battle at Granicus, see
1, and the original texts in Greek: 2 and 3. Alexander send to Athens 300 shields (aka panoplies) with the inscription  "Alexander the son of Philip and all the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians from the Barbarians who dwell in Asia." This was a message to the Spartans too, who didn't join Alexander's campaign (Sparta's law didn't allow them to go under a non-Spartan leader). Some scholars make the association with Thermopylae (300 shields for the 300 Spartans who died at that battle). talk to +MATIA 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander son of Philip - Arrian and Plutarch 

message: right|thumb|The Smallville version of the Shield of Alexander the Great, as seen in the first season episode, "Rogue"Why is this artifact labeled a shield? It is very obviously a cuirass, unless I am missing something. Haiduc 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is not a shield 

message: Does anybody know where was Hephaestion's body actually buried? We do know he died in hamedan, but was his body moved to babylon or not? I have a source (Persian book) from Iran's National Heritage Organization saying that this (and another destroyed twin lion statue standing opposite to this one) were built by the orders of Alexander in Hamedan in remembrance of Hephaestion (Alexander's gay lover), when being buried.
Can anybody verify this please?--Zereshk 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this source  Hephaestion was buried in Babylon. another source also says that he was buried in Babylon . According to what i know, Hephaestion was buried in Babylon. but u are right in your second point: Hamedan is ancient  Ecbatana for the Greeks, so as the 2nd source i provided says (by interpreating ancient authors' writings) he (Alexander) ordered the shrine of Asclepius in Ecbatana to be razed to the ground. i guess that this lion is what remains from the monument built for Hephaestion by Alexander, not in the place that he was buried, but in the place he died. Hope i helped:) --Hectorian 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. Thanx.--Zereshk 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification requested

message: Does anyone want to weigh in on the problem at Quintus Curtius Rufus?  It's a conflict that started out as a revert war and has moved anywhere since--we need more input. Nareek 14:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quintus Curtius Rufus 

message: The statue of liberty is known as the New Colossus.  We know that the Colossus of Rhodes was originally Alexander, as he was portrayed as Helios - the Sun God.  The Statue of Liberty is unmistakably the face of Alexander the Great - and I think that the statue of liberty should be added to this article in honor of Alexander.Alexandria Dawn 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no reference to the colossus of Rhodes being Alexander, and, the last time I looked anyway, the statue of liberty was a woman, hence the "Lady" in "Lady Liberty", and, IMO, it doesn't look like the known representations of Alexander anymore than I do, and I don't.  And finally Wikipedia is not about honouring anybody, its about creating and developing factual articles--KaptKos 17:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue of Liberty/Colossus of Rhodes 

message: Paramahansa Yogananda had claimed that Adolf Hitler was Alexander in one of his past lives to some of his disciples. Many people would view this as absurd but let us consider the similiarities in personality between these two historical figures. But were known for their cruel behaviours and their love for conquest. Hitler had a sub-conscious love for Hindu thought. The swastika sysmbol is a Hindu design and Alexander had a Hindu spiritual teacher who is mentioned in the Autobiography of a Yogi. Should we include this controversial piece of information in the article? Any comments or feedback? --Siva1979Talk to me 15:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I thank you for enlightening me about the swastika symbol. I was not aware that the swastika symbol existed in the Mycenaean civilization. But you failed to mention about Paranmahansa Yoganada's comments and observations about Hitler. Here, we have a highly respected Hindu guru telling some of his disciples about Hitler's past lives. Surely this is not from a not-so-credible source. Secondly, this is a theory that may never be proved by the ordinary public as reincarnation is not possible to be verified by scientific means. Anyway, these kinds of information about past lives is highly unaccessible by the ordinary masses as they have no knowledge about life after death and thus view these theories as nonsense. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You cannot compare Adolf Hitler to Alexander the Great. Alexander treated the people he conquered as equal citizens within his empire. Adolf Hitler killed people he conquered, burned down thousands of villages, and murdered 6 million Jews. Alexander spread Hellenism, taught people how to read and write when they did not even know how to wipe their own ass, and built great cities. You cannot compare the two.66.233.19.170 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Hitler and Alexander the same person? 

message: The section Alexander's marriages and sexuality continues expanding in an article that has already touched 63KB, with warring factions (anon. editors, generally) for or against his homosexuality. I propose building a new article on the subject which would take the material in the present article; here would remain a very brief summary that would mention his sons, his women and his relationship with Hephaestion. And we could send to the main article for those interested in knowing more on the argument.--Aldux 17:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be seen as a POV fork. Why not create two articles, on one his personal life and another on his military exploits? Haiduc 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain me why it would be POV? After all it wouldn't be simply on his sexuality, but more generally on his personal life. And it's common to create sub-articles when an article has considerable dimensions. As for an article on Alexander's military exploits, that section can't be reasonably reduced in the present article.--Aldux 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking out his sexuality will segregate a contentious issue from less debated ones, serving to some extent the purpose of those trying to sanitize his image. It seems to me that three articles should be created, one "Alexander the great" briefly summarizing, in a couple of paragraphs, his image and role in history; one with his personal life, "Personal life of Alexander" including birth, death, and relationships; and another, "Conquests of Alexander" with his military exploits. 63K is too much to maintain, the article is unwieldy as it is. Haiduc 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If we always keep in mind that Wikipedia is a service to readers we can avoid much of this kind of thing. --Wetman 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, do not try to homosexualize Alexander the Great. There is nowhere nearly enough evidence to even present it as a possibility. MegasAllexandros 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander's sexuality

message: This article is being repeatedly vandalised by anons the last few days. Check history.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection needed 

message: The following was added.  I don't think it belongs here as a reference.
* Family, History. Alexander's Descents(1986) Local Researcher Bradd Walker found out that some of Alexander's descendants were reknowned under the names of Tabilha, Booker, Sexton, Smith, Taybor, Holiway, Moorefield, and Faulkner
Thoughts? Jkelly 19:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous headline.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to references? 

message: Edits to Alexander the Great and Cleophis were blocked by someone two days ago. Who could be that guy????
KLS alias Sze cavalry01 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was the guy?

message: Mary Renault, in Fire from Heaven, accuses Demosthenes of being among the plotters for the assassination of King Phillip, based on a "prophecy" by Demosthenes as to the exact time and method of the king's death. Renault, quite reasonably, suspects that Demosthenes knew these details ahead of time because he was a conspirator himself.Das Baz 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mary Renault on Demosthenes as Regicide