Talk:Diadochi

message: With apologies to  Miskin, I have reverted his/her edits concerning distinctions between Macedonia and Greece. Although I am not an expert on this history, the present version more clearly reflects wmy understanding. And, as far as I can tell, it also seems to more clearly reflect the understanding of the other editors of this page. I would request that we please first discuss the issue on this talk page, before making any more changes in this article relating to this issue.  Paul August ☎ 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian-Greek distinction 

message: Looks great. This has got to be one of the longest, most thorough pages I've seen which fall into the category of what are essentially glorified disambig pages. Even though this article links to the main pages of each of these wars, which provide greater detail and length, this article itself does not look sparse at all. There's even a map. I don't know enough about the subject to have any idea if you've left out entire events or sections, but what is here is excellent. LordAmeth 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: Alexander page say he died 11th of june this one say 10th of june  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.125 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Don't look to Brittanica for clarification; it gives June 13. Brando130 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I made a new map showing the empire of Antigonos and the other diadochi before Ipsus, with much more detail than the one that was there before, which was also mislabeled, saying that it was a map AFTER Ipsus, not before. Also added that detail to the top map, which did not specify (i think its necessary, Ipsus changed the entire face of the diadoch kingdoms).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There may be a problem with this classification, which the article does not explain. It is noted above that the article is still much like a disambig page. An article on the diadochi should properly explain the usage and origin of the term. It is a legitimate historical term, except for the "rank" concept. There was no organization of diadochi within which they had this or that rank! The historical circumstances were fluid. I am still canvassing the works of the experts to see where this rank of the diadochi comes from, but I am not finding anything. What I do find is the blog on the totalwar game, which defines ranks of the diadochi game role. This is I fear the source of the ranks of the diadochi. There is of course a lot of enthusiasm for the game, and a lot of that enthusiasm spills over into WP articles. In fact there seems to be an entire clade of military enthusiasts creating, if you will, a new cult of the imperial Macedonians. Well, I think we have to take our enthusiam as we find it, and be glad to get it, but there is a certain problem with historical enthusiasm, that the enthusiasts want to insert themselves into history and pick up where the diadochi left off. The diadochi shall rise again, so to speak, and many other notorious instances of which I shall not speak. This is part of the historicity problem, how to keep history historical when it wants to spill into the present and future. In a nutshell, unless "first rank", "second rank" and the like turn up as some famous historian's classification I think they have to go. The game is not an encyclopedic source. I'll keep you posted as I go over this. For authorization I cite the tag at the top and the complaint that this article is too much like a disambig.Botteville (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks of the diadochi 

message: The way the article is turning out, there is not really any room for presentations of individual Diadochi. There were quite a few. The previous editors started developing a set of articles on each diadochus. I think that is a good idea. Hence I want to move the paragraphs on individual diadochi to those articles. I may have to request that some articles be created. The previous editors also organized the diadochi, apparently on the basis of the game. This is a good organization, for a very limited time. It is basically the way things were at Alexander's death. It would not apply to diadochi at all times. So, what I want to do is offer a brief introduction to the groups. The diadochi in the group would then have blue links to their articles. First up is Perdiccas. He does not belong by himself; he had been made somatophylax, so he goes in that group. He was not always that of course. So, it is necessary to clarify what we mean by these groups. I started on that also. My approach is to some degree matrix.Botteville (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual Diadochi

message: It seems to me that this article  would benefit from rearrangement, putting the history first and the etymology later, since the latter is mostly  of interest to specislists. Peter Flass (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this, and then went on to make a number of small edits which I hope have improved the article, especally for the non-specialist (which I am). Peter Flass (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: Whoever wrote (and then rolled back) the phonetics of "Diadochi" needs to think about what they actually wrote. It's totally wrong. I fixed it, and it was reverted without reason. Most historians pronounce "Diadochi" in the classical pronunciation which is NOT what is displayed right now  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:301:8CA0:EDB8:BBAA:6663:DD8 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation