Talk:Alexander the Great

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

Template:FAOL Template:WP1.0

Alexander the Great did NOT invade India

the opening of this article states the his empire stretched till panjab, india.????? this is incorrect, Alexander and his forces did reach up until the Panjab province, but the Panjab province of Pakistan. His forces mutineered before entering further east and ancient maps of the ancient hellenic empire correlate with the current the current Pakistan india border. Please correct this inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.153 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, "Alexander Invaded India" refers to what the ancient historians described as the "Indian Kingdoms" and what became the Indo-Greek kingdom in the Indian subcontinent. It certainly does not refer to modern states and peoples strifes, religious stifes or civil strifes. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Too Glorified?

I feel that the article has been leaning towards him as being much greater than he really was. Describing him as a legend and such is going too far... wouldn't it be better to use a more neutral tongue?

• prepare for flames* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.214.41 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well,isn't he Great?? He defeated a huge empire with quite small armies and spread civilisation in an enormous area... I clearly do not see your point...--Michael X the White (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio

pronunciation of his name: will it be useful?> that's the native pronunciation and word in Greek>
Alexander the Great Template:Lang-el(); or Template:Polytonic

CuteHappyBrute (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, since it uses the modern rather than the Classical pronunciation ("Alexandhros o Meghas" rather than "Alexandros o Megas"). People most likely won't be interested in that. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ok but, wait what? You want me to spell it on the well known Classical Greek pronunciation? i'm kidding, with that logic no article about antiquity is worth an audio. amirite? It's not interesting because the Classical Greek pronunciation is "somehow" different than the modern one? As far as I know (O.R.? no-.-) the Greek Alphabet, established centuries before Alexander is the first Alphabet in the narrow sense of phoneme-per-letter reading. Which means what you see is what you read and spell. Dialect writing has sub-symbols. And as far as any Greek reader here can see the, as you say, "modern" name of Alexander the Great, is written 100% exactly the same from the coins [[1]] of the Hellenistic Period of the 4th century BC until right now, today, without any fake adjustments. Correct me if i'm mistaken, good sir. Unless you mean you want the exact King Alexander, ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ, that these coins depict ? and even if the modern is indeed magically somehow 100% different, isn't it desirable for foreigners to know the native term? of how he called himself, how his name is written on the coins and how his people pronounced it(roughly or correctly)? or even just the native term of a pop article... and aaanywho i think it's ok to add a file for a name so many times mentioned, considering Estados Unidos Mexicanos has its own file, wait two files, for pronunciation. (not that Mehico is less important mis amigos)CuteHappyBrute (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It ought to say that it's the modern pronuntiation, until someone finds reliable sources stating that the pronuntiation has not changed substantially since antiguity --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the articles on Delta and Gamma rightly state, the pronunciation of the letters changed after Classical times (Hellenistic - Roman). Since Alexander lived in late Classical times (his death considered the beginning of the Hellenistic era, usually), the pronunciation of his name in later Greek might be irrelevant. Just my 2 cents. If you decide to include it, though, make sure you use a disclaimer like the one Enric mentioned. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

correct you speak, good sirs. did you see me say "label my audio, ancient Greek speech"? of course it is modern greek. who would be 100% sure about a minor or major change? and even it has been a total change. i never mislabeled my audio. it IS modern Greek-Attic. delta and gamma still today float from "dd" and "gg" shuffled, to dt and gk stopped. no denying that. but the main understanding of the letter is always there, from the phoenician syllabic alphabet, to the greek phonemic one. in Crete, south Greece there is today a dialect in which the word "salt" goes from "alati" to "aratsi"(lol for us). does that change the base of the word? no. not to even mention the weird long pronunciation of the archaic dialect of Cyprus.. that mustn't even be IndoEuropean (xD). plus "Alexandhros o Meghas" AND "Alexandros o Megas", are today still existing dialects of Greek. i repeat. label it arabic/chinese/!click language. it's just an audio that reflects what's the name of this article in its native language,today, modern Greek. As i said,1st with that kind of logic every audio about anything coming from ancient times is unusable, 2nd many articles have audios, that's why i thought it would be cool. if it's boring/unrelated, ok.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All good, mate! Go ahead and add it. Just my 2 cents, like I said. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have enough votes yet..=[ What about MY dignity? It's just weird how people try to prove the Greek language is soo different from Antiquity. I'm far far away from being an expert but with the narrow sense of the alphabet, that is the greek one, only slides and stops can change in the spelling of the very same letters. Still, it would be difficult to bring a 2500 year old Greek around here to prove anything. Just think of his arthritis. Not to mention he wouldn't be a linguist and would be bullied around, around here. I am talking about Modern Greek. I would bring my grandad from Crete , but he's just a 103yo boy prolly jumping around on green grass as we speak. Just let it here. If people find it interesting , ok, if not, ok too. =D CuteHappyBrute (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why reconstruction exists; our best bet ;). In any case, only a few sounds changed in "Alexandros o Megas" so just add it with a note saying it's in modern greek. Don't worry. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected. Of course there should be a note saying it's modern greek. Besides, the letters I see written are modern Greek 100%. I don't believe modern greek cursive letters existed in 300 BC. I'm talking about them that should have an audio. I wouldn't know how valid reconstructions can be. But I'm sure amused, in the good sense, with Germans and others pronouncing him "Alexandgos o Meyahs" That's all. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, they sure can't pronounce their Rs (no offence ;). In any case, yes, I'm simply talking about sounds and we have a decent idea that and how they changed. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

lol they can't? naww, I dunno. I suggested this by example.. I also liked this article's audios> Xenophanes, where the Greek pronunciation exists (that I put later) and also the English one of the Englisized name of him. but still. in a rich Encyclopedia like this, with so many millions of contributors and gigantotitanic servers I think they should all be welcome as long as they don't interrupt with the flow (which i think they do, that "help/info" thingy needs to go and just leave the lil sound symbol for a link, so that reading flow isn't bothered)..anywayz, I've sensed negativity in beautiful articles like these. Let's not be like that. Just bring the creative part of the conflict.. I mean look at all the "ambiguous" Greek-related articles.. they may be a lil chaotic but they sure are the richest there is... so Love, Peace and hair Greece. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting enough, though I'm not convinced that a modern Greek pronunciation would be particularly relevant or helpful on the English wiki. (If it were on a modern Greek figure or place, that would be different.) Why not take it to el.wiki? Aristophanes of Byzantium's article says that the "tonal, pitched system of archaic and classical Greek was giving way (or had given way) to the stress-based system of koine" by his life in the second half of the third century BC. No doubt the pronunciation would probably be quite different. Brando130 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

sure. but keep in mind those accents are 100% mutually intelligible, even for kids who speak Greek and secondly the stressed ones still exist today in dialects such us the Cypriot one. as of course does the normal one. please see this, since you do not talk Greek and you need to see sources to believe me and because i am not Originally Researching> [[2]]the stressed is still used and even if you spell any word with the stressed pronunciation, only the stress changes, not the core of the word, it's like saying "Alexandros" as opposed to "AlExssandrus"(and that would be an extreme-fake approach of a possible change, from Attic to Cypriot for example, that differ a lot). thirdly, Modern Greek are Attic-Ionic. a more straight and clean dialect. the descendant of Koine that Alexander the Great spoke together with his Macedonian dialect as any villager of any country would speak a little different in his village as opposed to the city. see this> [[3]] what i mean is that the Modern Greek pronunciation is the closest to what his name sounded like, originally. unless you say because it's the modern one, the English one applies better in the English wikipedia. (btw in the Greek wiki it would be useless, because they know Greek there, we have Spoken articles for educational purposes etc) Just like Chinese cities and other non-English names, I thought I'd put the name, because some people like that kind of "native" stuff. Just how I like listening to [[4]] by a native Russian as opposed to an Anglicized version of it from an English speaker, as you say would be appropriate. that is my only equivalent motive for suggesting it. because i know how the English pronunciation of an English version of a Russian word would sound like. but not the Russian one. Just my opinion and taste. oh btw i also think the audios and etymology takes up too much space. like that> Makednos it overloads with explanations x[. just saying my personal taste about the subjects. CuteHappyBrute (talk)

Well there were no accent marks when Alexander lived, they were invented later, and even then, as Greek diacritics says, "the distinctions it represented had disappeared from the spoken language early in the Christian era. Since the pitch accent eventually gave place to a dynamic accent, and aspiration was lost in Greek, most polytonic diacritics have no phonetic significance in the modern language, merely reflecting ancient Greek etymology." But if you're simply arguing that the modern Greek pronunciation is probably closer to the original pronunciation than other languages, well obviously thats true. Still, the pronunciation may have been quite different, and I'm of the opinion that Alexander the Great, Aristotle, and other specifically ancient Greek articles are not helped much by an audio link with modern Greek pronunciation - where Athens, Corinth, Thessaloníki, on the other hand - are great candidates to add audio on how it is pronounced in modern Greek (much like your St Petersburg example) Brando130 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my point, as well. Alex III was a historical person so the modern (or the later, in any case) Gk pronunciation is irrelevant. On the other hand, the article Alexander (name) would be a good place, perhaps, since the origin of the name is Gk and it's still used as a name by the native speakers (inserted with a disclaimer of course). 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

oh. i thought the ancient-modern thing applied only to Greek stuff, in some weird way. As long as it goes with any non-English stuff, it's ok. Thanx. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The modern pronunciation is absolutely correct!! It is 100% the same as in the ancient times! (Alexandhros o Meghas). The view that the classical pronunctiation was different than the modern was introduced by Erasmus, but he later stated that he was wrong; it was too late though. The "wstern" world is still taught the Erasmian pronunciation, even if it is widely accepted that it is not correct.Pope & Patriarch of Rome, Benedict XVI accepted this recently in his rather recent visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (of Constantinople), where he and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomy I read the Lord's Prayer in Greek,and both read it in "modern" Greek pronunciation. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

image depicted on chest of Alexander

Can anyone identify the woman depicted on the chest of Alexander in the fresco from Pompei that is used as the lead image for the article? Is it a Gorgon, such as Medusa? I know that Alexander often used images of Athena (and images related to her) on the coins he issued -- did he copy the use of the Gorgon on the chest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.169.194 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it's a gorgoneion. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearchus Map discussion at Alexander the Great

(Moved here for response and discussion if needed)

Hello,

I'd just like to inform you that the current map (not the one you re-inserted) also shows the sea-voyage of Nearchus. Therefore there's no reason to re-insert the map you did. It is well-known that Alexander never went further south than the Egyptian capital of Memphis. The map you inserted is therefore not only redundant, but also inaccurate. Cheers. --Tsourkpk (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note -- I do disagree with the removal of the map I re-inserted since I can not find anything I can read that notes the Voyage of Nearchus on the one you insist is adequate. The voyage of Nearchus is listed clearly in the legend of the map I had inserted and I believe that adding a legible entry would be effective in the article. I would have returned to expand the article to include some discussion of the generals and admirals to accompany the map, and would have used the link to Nearchus to lead readers to additional information. The map was intended to lead to discussion of Nearchus and the generals who inherited the expanding empire of Alexander when he died -- that is important when considering the affect Alexander had upon these other cultures.

I am not inclined to edit wars, however, and abandon efforts to make changes (even if I feel I am correct) where I encounter strong proprietary efforts by current editors -- so I just moved on -- I only feel inclined to argue points when there is gross distortion or significant error and, few participating in the edits. Since there are many editors contributing to this article, someday it may take a turn toward more detail about others in the campaigns and the historic legacy.

Upon close examination, I find no error on the map regarding the campaigns in Egypt as I once did and, therefore, do not understand your assertion of an error regarding how far Alexander traveled as a reason for removal of the more legible map. That was not a topic in the caption when you deleted the map. Furthermore, the farthest south that Alexander went on the map I inserted is Siwa, which is labeled, AMMON, the Graecized name of the Egyptian deity Amun, whose major temple was there and which is documented extensively as a place to which Alexander traveled. This is the temple at which he famously said he was welcomed as a "son" of the deity. This is more southerly than Memphis, albeit -- not much.

Your note is much appreciated, however, even if we disagree. -- 83d40m (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of the article

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but why does the title use 'Great' in violation of WP:NC? --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 15:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things supports the use of "Great". --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great! How can that violate anything? Why would anyone ask that question? Joe Deagan (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's the common name for him, so that's the one we should use --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, great is an honorific of a sort. What's wrong with Alexander of Macedonia? I'm not trying to be difficult but this is causing problems elsewhere (out in Mahatma Gandhi, for example). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Alexander of Macedonia, but he is known throughoght the world as Alexander the Great. Joe Deagan (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You just need to look throught the language link on the left of the page to see that this is true. On spanish and other languages he is also known as "magno", which translates roughly as "magnificient", and there is no problem with calling him like that because it's the name that all spanish historians use --Enric Naval (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's something wrong with "Alexander of Macedonia", and it has to do with the issues that spawned WP:ARBMAC. Stick with the most common English name for our subject: Alexander the Great. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That was illuminating (WP:ARBMAC). I guess this is a 'great' exception! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the regnal name of the famous eldest son of Philip II of Macedon was the common name Alexander, traditional historiography resorted to three solutions:Alexander the Macedonian, Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Great, with the last being the most popular. That is what the precedent is for, and is in keeping with all major print encyclopedias (Britannica (see here), Encarta (see here), Columbia (see here), and Webster's (see here). Traditional historiography did this routinely for famous rulers of a certain vintage: Ashoka the Great (India), Alfred the Great (Britain), Pacal the Great (Maya), Canute the Great (Viking/England), Ramkhamhaeng the Great (Siam), Herod the Great (Judea), Sejong the Great (Korea), Akbar the Great (India), Cyrus the Great (Persia), ..., and lord knows how many more ... (and let's not forget Gonzo the Great).

In other words, even if there were no problems of political correctness involving Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, it would be unlikely that the name of the page would be changed to, say, Alexander III of Macedon because the precedent from traditional historiography is strong ... Having said that, it is also true that things can change; for example, Catherine the Great redirects to Catherine II, and Peter the Great to Peter I of Russia, but it could also be that this happened because the last two are more recent figures, or because of some ideological reasons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)