Talk:Alexander the Great

New comments at bottom, please.

Complaints

It's appalling to see that most of the authors/editors of this entry have chosen to use pseudohistory and slanderers as their sources. Too bad no one has EVER read J.F.C. Fuller's "The Generalship of Alexander The Great"? It's the best single historical account, and also goes and scrutinizes Alexander's policy and strategy.

There are so many misstatements, misrepresentations and presentations of speculation and/or unreliable source accounts as fact in this entry that it's difficult to know where to begin correcting them - and, at the moment, I'm unwilling to make the effort at correcting them, given the amount of time that would be required. Nonetheless, if this is representative of what a Wiki encyclopedia has to offer, it's a damning indictment of the whole notion of open source history.

Here are just three examples:

In the Early Life section, the contention that Alexander was responsible for spreading the "legends" (more properly "logos" or stories - legends are folklore, not propaganda) about Zeus fathering him. (Virtually this entire section is from Plutarch, btw.) The evidence for this viewpoint is shaky, mostly relies on hostile sources and is not generally accepted by historians. The most likely original sources of these stories are Callisthenes, his official campaign historian, or, especially, Onesicritus, his chief helmsman and author of a lost work entitled "The Education of Alexander" that was infamous for its many inventions and wild exaggerations.

In the Period of Conquests section, it is stated as fact that Alexander was proclaimed Pharoah by the priests of Amon. In fact, no such statement is attributed to the high priest of the Libyan deity Ammon by any of the sources, although, according to several of the source historians, the high priest greeted him with the words "O Paidos", which translates as "O Son of God". He is specifically said to have been crowned as Pharoah at Memphis ONLY in the Alexander Romance, which is not considered a reliable source in any way by any one.

In the Death section, the absurd speculation of the unnamed New Scotland Yard detective is presented as definitive. In fact, the described symptoms of Alexander's death do not in any way conform to those of hellebore poisoning and the poisoning theory is universally deprecated by modern historians. In the article "A Mysterious Death" in The New England Journal of Medicine, 38:1764-1769 (June 11), 1998, Eugene N. Borza (one of the most respected scholars of Alexander and Macedon of the 20th Century), David W. Oldach, M.D. (then Professor of Pathology at the University of Maryland Medical School), Robert E. Richard, M.D., Ph.D., and R. Michael Benitez M.D. (both also of the UM Med School) present a compelling case for Salmonella typhi enteritis, complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis as the cause of Alexander's Death. Oldach's analysis notes, "If ascending paralysis developed during the course of Alexander's fatal febrile illness (presumably typhoid fever), this paralysis may have given the impression of death before it actually occurred," in addressing the stories in both Curtius and Arrian that Alexander's body showed no signs of corruption after several days of being locked in his bedroom at the height of the Babylonian summer.

There are any number of other, similar problems with this article - far too many for me to correct at the moment. However, I think you should definitely add Plutarch's "Life of Alexander" (particularly in view of the fact that the Early Life section is drawn almost entirely from that work), as well as the Roman rhetor Justin's "Epitome of the Phillipic History of Pompeius Trogus" and the Roman geographer Strabo's "Geography" to your list of Ancient Sources. - Thom Stark

Ive corrected many misspellings (dont think anyone will disagree).
The Kingdom of Macedon was part of Classical Greece. Im giving a map (two links, same map):

http://www.wls.wels.net/conted/Science/Classical%20Greece.jpg http://www.wellesley.edu/ClassicalStudies/CLCV104/images/classical_greece.gif Please dont mix Athens with Greece.

Epirus was not wild, nor semi(!)greek

-Stefka

Someone added a bit about Anaxarchus pointing to Alexander's blood as a sign he was mortal. But according to another tradition, Alexander himself had once pointed to it when someone else claimed it was ichor, so a reminder as a check to his divine aspirations seems a little odd. Any stories about Alexander have to be examined carefully. Does someone have a reference for this?

Haven't heard that one. I've added a bunch of stuff here from Arrian and Plutarch, and it's compatible with Peter Green's discussion of the Diadochoi (for the most part) in Alexander to Actium. I've tried to make this a bit more NPOV, as it seemed just a little too surprised that someone might see Alexander in any but the most positive of all possible lights. -- Blain

Changed Macedonia link to Macedon; ancients didn't call their land Macedonia, and the entry we have on "Macedonia" isn't useful for Alexander. Should probably have an article on Macedon, and take the one sentence about Alexander out of Macedonia, maybe with a "see also." Vicki Rosenzweig

IIRC, the kingdom was Macedon, but it became Macedonia when conquered by the Romans. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a problem with Macedon/Macedonia, but don't the naming conventions suggest that articles be named based on their most popular usage, rather than their most correct usage (if there's a difference)? Perhaps using Macedonia to refer to recent history and Macedon for ancient history would work (with "see also" back and forth)? -- Blain

My native language is Greek and I can assure you that Macedon and Macedonia is the same thing. Macedonia is the "modern" way to say Macedon. Maybe you should change back the link to Macedonia from Macedon. If the article about Macedonia is not informative enough you could always change it.

Just a note about the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander. Those two were two different personalities and they used to clash a lot but Alexander did something that makes me wanter if their relationship was as bad as people think today. While he was invading Asia he would send to his teacher all new and interesting animals that he would incounter in his expedition because he knew that old Aristotle was almost obsessed with the classification of things. The result was that Aristotle formed a kind of a zoo back in Macedonia from the gifts of his student. Now, if young Alexander was so sick of his teacher why did he bother? --Eanorel

Good point. I think Alexander was complicated enough that trying to determine who he liked and who he didn't (and which was safer) isn't all that easy. He was known to treat his enemies rather well and to kill his friends when they ticked him off. I think he might have respected Aristotle and just not wanted to spend time around him anymore. Just a thought -- Blain

The most recent edits to this article are very strange. Why change Egypt to "Pgypt"?? Why delete the paragraphs that were deleted? Can someone give me a reality check on this? -- April

Need more on Hephaestion.

I second this. Lizzie 05:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RE Erotomenes:

1) Am I spelling this correctly? 2) Am I using this correctly? 3) We probably should have an entry on this, no?UPDATE:

Should be Eromenos. Apparently implies a young (or "younger than" man), so probably not appropriate for Hephaestion, who was apparently the same age as Alexander or slightly older.

Perhaps this could use a passing mention of the Gordian Knot? One of the anecdotes of his life more commonly used in metaphor. --JohnOwens 15:16 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to Alexander III of Macedon (is taht right)? becasue native people of ares around Persia do nto consider him to be "the Great" they really dont liek him think hes "the Terrible". -fonzy

His name is Alexander the Great, regardless of what you actually think of the man. At the time, different kings of the same name were not given numbers as they are now, but were given sobriquets. For instance, Demetrius the Besieger, Seleucus the Victor, Ptolemy the Savior. It would be silly to argue that Demetrius wasn't really a capable besieger or that Ptolemy wasn't actually a savior, and the same situation applies here. It should be noted, though, that the other kings are typically referred to by number, so perhaps Alexander should be moved for consistency sake - but not because "the Great" is NPOV. --Josh Grosse

I agree -- we shouldn't start calling Charlemagne "Charle," either. Slrubenstein

Why would i want to move Charlemagne to Charlie?? Anyway I still think it should move ok, to me it does not mean naything but to native people of those areas they dont consider him "great" there hes not called Alexander the Great, i cnat remember exactly what they call him. But names like Edward the Confessor are not as abit an issue, as its not really emplying anything. But he was called the greta because the people who named him that believed that he was. -fonzy

It would be absurd to rename the page. This is covered by policy already: "best known common name". Now Google isn't the be-all and end-all, sure, but are you seriously contemplating moving to a name that gets 306 Google hits from one that gets 199,000? Tannin 11:43 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

We shouldn't change the name, but I think we should change the sentence Alexander is remembered as a legendary hero in Europe and much of western and central Asia, where he is known as Iskander. fonzy is I believe correct about Alexander's reputation in western Asia. Incidentally, even referring to a monarch by number can be NPOV, e.g. Napoleon III, or Elizabeth II of Scotland. --Townmouse 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody state the refference for his birthday in June? Are you sure about this? Because i remember reading in Plutrach that he was of the sign of Leo (21 July - 21 August), and he wore a lion ring all of his life. Muriel Gottrop.

I am afraid the reference is again Plutarch. He states that Alexander was born at the same night Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Since that event is placed on June 21 , 356 in wikipedia's timelines so does Alexander's birth. See if placement needs correcting. User: Dimadick

You were right. Most sites about Alexander place his birth on July, 356 and those trying to assign dates use either July 20 or July 26. I'll change the birth date and the burning according to your info. Thanks. User: Dimadick

see Alexander the Great (pl) : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Macedo%C5%84ski LINK Macedonii

Date of Alexander's birth July 26 ?? sources: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t32.html and http://www.infoephesus.com/templeofartemis.php

Table formatting replaced with "div" formatting

File:Alexander the great 1.jpg
Contemporary bust of Alexander the Great

.. Rednblu 03:02 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know if his body was taken by Ptolemy I to Egypt?

--ciaran

I learned in my HIS 101 class that Alexander the Great inherited the conquered Greek city-states, but that Sparta was not yet conquered, so he conquered Sparta then went on to conquer Persia. Is this fact or fiction?

He did not conquer Sparta. Sparta was not part of Philip's League of Corinth, but was quiescent. Upon Alexander's accession, he marched north to deal with some northern tribes. Rumors came back that he was dead. Thebes revolted, and he put down the revolt with prejudice. Then he went off to Persia. Antipater was left as regent, and during that time had to deal with a war with Sparta, which he won. Sparta never did join the league, though. john 06:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify the Sparta situation. The number knowledgeable people on Wikipedia amazes me. Thank you.

Something that surprised me was the article's statement that he inherited a conquered Greece, and began his campaigns at the Dardannelles. (Well, I may have it wrong, but that is the impression I received.) What about him pacifying the revolts on the two sides of the Danube, and the subjugation of Thebes and selling its leading citizens into slavery; are those stories not historical? Pagan 07:47, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Date of his death June 11 not 10

This page http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t41.html makes a good case for June 11 being the date of Alexander's death.

I'm a senior in Highschool and I did a research project on Alexander and I just wanted to add some information to the site.

Alexander’s army was one of the first to successfully use siege weapons. His father, Philip did have siege material but never figured out how to utilize his new powerful weapon. After his father’s death Alexander had to squelch revolts from neighboring city/states during his first months as king. He had to deal with the city-state Thebes. When he arrived at Thebes, he gave them a chance to surrender but they refused, so he used his siege weapons to attack the city’s walls. The weapon he used is called a catapult. The catapult is a machine, which throws huge rocks. This weapon is very useful for destroying walls and buildings. They also had a weapon that launched huge arrows. Both of these siege weapons used torsion to launch their ammo (Fox 104-105). Alexander’s army also had many other dimensions to it such as a great Calvary. The Calvary was considered the heart of Alexander’s army. The well-trained Calvary was an important factor, which helped turn the battle in Alexander’s favor. His Calvary was made up of two types or units. The first had long spears, which were used to pierce enemy ranks. The second were units that carried long two-handed swords. These units had to be well trained because these riders did not have stirrups yet (Fox 108-111). His army also consisted of spearmen that carried weapons that were thirteen feet long (“The Real” n.p.). These spearmen were very effective against Calvary and charging footmen. These soldiers were trained to wave their spears up and down while charging, this helped deflect any arrows that were shot in their direction. This type of infantry was very competent in the open battlefield but had trouble turning their ranks in battle. They also had difficulty maneuvering in certain terrains. Unfortunately for Alexander these weapons had many constraints on them and could only excel in certain conditions. His army also had archers and slingers that helped Alexander with his long-range attack. These troops proved to be very useful against the Persian archers. One of the more effective infantries he had were the shield bearers. These men carried shields as well as swords. This type of infantry was useful to Alexander he kept these men on the far left and right ranks of his men just in case of ambush. If he was flanked by his enemies he had men who were well armed and protected to defend the interior. Alexander also had certain units that could be compared to America’s Special Forces unit. These men were called Gurkhas and they carried javelins. Alexander used Gurkhas for rough climbs and night attacks. During this time period no other army had such diversity. Alexander was well known for his skill in balancing armies (Fox 108-111).

I have seen referenced to his death as June 13. Why the confusion? --Eoghanacht 20:31, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Where did you get the Gurkha idea? I suspect you got it here—a previous version of Alexander the Great included that (very silly) notion. See Gurkhas. Apparently someone misunderstood a reference in a secondary source, comparing some unit of Alexander's army to the Gurkhas. Alexander no more had Gurkhas in his army than he had the French Foreign Legion. Lectiodifficilior 21:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) — incidentally, if you want to add something, go ahead and add it. If there are any problems with it—eg., Gurkhas—they will get edited in time. Lectiodifficilior

Transliteration

What do people think about transliteration? I'd like to get Alexander entirely in one system. Having one part of the bio talk of "Isokrates," and another "Cleopatra" gives me the willies. The prevalent system in this article is the "conventional" English-through-Latin scheme, eg., Athens (not Athenai), Ptolemy (not Ptolemaios), etc. This is still the dominant way--probably in academia and certainly on the Web, where public domain translations from earlier eras abound. The rule can have exceptions--I prefer to make a "minor" Ptolemy into a Ptolemaios to avoid confusion--but there would still be a rule.

Any objections? If I went through changing everything to the "conventional" system, will it get changed back?

Yes. Wikipedia policy is to use the naming that most English speakers know. Cleopatra is not Kleopatra. Isokrates is not Isocrates. Are you going to change Alexander to Aleksandros? RickK 05:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

That's jumbled. "Isocrates" is the better known (Google 20,600 vs 4,760). The K is Isokrates is the same letter (a kappa) in Kleopatra; these went into Latin as Cs, and this is the better-known form. Forms like Isokrates, Kleopatra, Alexandros, Ptolemaios, etc. reproduce the Greek spelling better, at the expense of being unfamiliar (and a bit exotic) to most readers.

Shouldn't the most common spelling be used, with redirects where necssary? Isocrates has an article; Isokrates does not even have a redirect. I have changed it. Are any other of the other names not "conventional"? The only one I can see is Parmenio who I know as Parmenion, but, again, there is no article for Parmenion so perhaps my education is at fault! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But nobody would recognize Kleopatra. Leave it at Cleopatra, and if you need to, explain the transliteration in the article about her. RickK 18:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, I suggest removing the section headlined "Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world." This seems to be a pointless exercise and the article is already rather long and digressive. Should one point out that in Spain Charlemagne is known as Carlomagno and New York as Nueva York, or that the current English monarch is referred to as Isabelle II in France? (Actually old Spanish encyclopaedias took this further and translated all given names, making George Washington into Jorge Washington, and so on.) -- Eb.hoop 2:05 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed that section. Besides my objection above, the forms of the name in other languages are already discussed in Alexander. Here's what I cut out:

Names used for Alexander the Great in different parts of the world

Because of the diversity of the conquered lands, Alexander the Great was known by different names, if not in his time then in the stories passed down in generations since then.

Greek: ho Megas Alexandros (ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος) or, more formally, Alexandros III ho Makedon (Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδόν): "Alexander the Great" or, more formally, "Alexander III of Macedon";; also Alexandros Philipou: "Alexander the son of Philip."
Albania: Aleksander , Lek meaning "Born as a dream" (Ai-ka-le-si-ander)
Central Asia: Iskander
Arab world and parts of India: Sikandar or Iskander (see the Iraqi city of Iskandariya, also called Sikandariyeh)
Parts of India: Alakshendra
Poland: Aleksander Macedoński
Russia: Александр Македонский (pronounced "Aleksandr Macedonski" literally means Alexander of Macedonia)
Spain: Alejandro

--Eb.hoop 12:02 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Romance

I added a bit about the Alexander Romance. How do we go about getting a separate entry for it? To describe it correctly--I didn't describe it's contents at al!--would range very far from the historical Alexander. Lectiodifficilior

Aristander of Telmessus

I added a note about Aristander of Telmessus being the seer who interpreted Philip's dream, and then went ahead and wrote a very full article on this fascinating individual. I wrote it with the intention of condensing a talk I gave on Aristander, which I will probably never get up on the web. As such, it pushes the edge of what's published about Aristander. It would be interesting to see if other's take it up. Lectiodifficilior

"medizing"

In the "character" section, Alexander is described as "medizing". I don't know this word, and I suspect most nonexperts in ancient history don't either. A Google search reveals it has something to do with Persia, but I can't find a clear definition. Could somebody clarify this? --Shibboleth 23:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It means "becoming like a Persian." Greeks conflated the Medes and the Persians. In Greek history it generally means either bending foreign policy (ie., "Finlandizing") or, as here, adopting suspect non-Greek habits (ie., "going native"). Lectiodifficilior

Work Cited Fox, Robin L. The Search for Alexander. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980. Carpenter, Betsy. “Alexander’s New Look.” U.S. News & World Report Nov. 2004: p.73.Expanded Academic ASAP The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark Dec. 19 Nov. 2004. http://web3.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Cartledge, Paul. “Alexander the Great: Hunting for a New Past?” History Today July 2004: p.10. Student Edition The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark DE. Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

“The Real Alexander: The True story behind History’s First Conqueror.” Current Events Oct. 29 2004: pss1. Student Edition The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, Newark DE. 17 Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Black, F.M. “Alexander’s city of Dreams.” Calliope Oct. 2001: p.4. Student Edition The Gale Group. Newark High School Library, 17 Nov. 2004. http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Leeming, Matthew S. “Wadding Through Blood To Glory.” The Spectrum Ltd. 25 Sept. 2004: p. 54 Expanded Academic ASAP The Gale Group. Newark High School Library Newark DE. 17 Nov. 2004 http://web5.infotrac.galegroup.com.

Greek etymology, Albanian nationalism

I reverted with slight changes the Albanian-language changes of 81.242.229.199. Alexander was half Epirote, the probable ancestors of the modern Albanians, but "Alexandros" is a perfectly normal, explicable, common and extremely ancient Greek name. (Not only was "Alexander" a Macedonian dynastic name before Epirotes married in, but the Trojan individual known to most Westerners as "Paris" was generally known in Greek as "Alexander.") By contrast the Albanian explanation ("born like a dream") is a folk etymology, and based on modern Albanian. Ancient Epirote--about which we know almost nothing--was surely quite different from modern Albanian. 2,300 years is a very long time, particularly as Albanian was not fixed in written form until the Renaissance.

To be fair, I also moved the Greek etymology "Defender or Men" down the page. As stated, the etymology is not particularly important. Greeks no more thought "Oh, he's a defender of men" when they met an Alexander as Germans think "Oh, he's a forest of fir trees" when they meet a Tannenwald, or American's think about barrel-making when they meet someone with the last name "Cooper." Lectiodifficilior

Beyond that everybody knows that Alexander's native language wasn't the greek but an uknown language that the greeks called 'barbaric language'. Which kind of language was?

In Balkan there are only two old and unic languages, Albanian and Greek.

Greek nationalism considere Macedonia as part of Greece, even thought they know that the ancient Macedonians didn't speak Greek, they still don't speak Greek, and also there are no Greeks living there. According to Albanian etymology 'Emadhia', the great land, seems to be Macedonia. This is like 'Shqiperia', the country of Eagles, is called Albania.

The facts are that the majority of people living in Macedonia are ethnic Albanians, an nation as old as the Greeks at least, and the second majority of people living there are Slavics who came in Balkan about the 7-8 century A.C.

Still today some greeks keep calling Albanian language 'barbaric language' because they don't know it, many people don't know it and ignore it, it is easier like that. As we still don't know today what was the native language that Alexander the Great used to speak to his troops before the battels...

Andi

Diadochi

The section on the Diadochi ought to be pruned severely, since it's only semi-literate and better described elsewhere anyway. Stan 21:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I and others have had a go at tidying it, but I agree - most of it should be merged into Diadochi - are there any other obvious overlaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

greec terminology

as far as i know, the comander of the cavaliry is "hiparchus" (from hippo - horse) and not "chiliarchos" as it is written. gilgamesh_he

Additions

I just couldn't stand the misinformation on this page, so I made time to correct most of the errors. I have also cited Plutarch's actual text for the discussion of Alexander's birth and origins, expanded the discussion of the Central Asian campaign and the death of Darius, added two of the primary sources and fine-tuned some of the grammar.

- Thom Stark

In general, this is good, thanks! In a couple places, you added "some historians" or "most historians", but without (presumably modern) attributions, so I don't know what books to go buy. :-) Ancient authors are fun, but only moderns, Peter Green for instance, are in a position to tell us who to believe. Stan 04:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Homosexual, or not?

The summary mentions he was homosexual, but that word never even occurs in the rest of the article. If it's important enough to be in the summary, you'd think it would make the main article. 170.35.224.64 18:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No kidding. The question of Alexander's sexuality is even in the news at the moment, thanks to Oliver Stone's film. There should be at least a paragraph explaining why Alexander is believed by some to have been homosexual. The Singing Badger 21:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a whole section on 'Alexander's marriages and sexuality' now. --mav 16:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered today that a homophobic anonymous user (64.12.116.13) had deleted many sources refering to Alexander's sexuality. Fortunately, there's always the history system so that we can restore old stuff :-) --dionyziz 10:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

Many modern Greeks and Macedonian Slavs are outraged at such suggestions

has any sense?

Alexander sources and legend

The sources and legend sections were removed somewhat earlier without discussion. Considering how major the revision and how many people worked on those sections I'm surpirsed this slipped by. I think they should be reinstated, and have done so. I think we should also reconstitute the "Alexander in Popular Culture." Stripped of the sources, legend and cultural impact, this is merely a narrow biography, full of errors and arguable claims. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but it shouldn't be narrow.

Sources

Without a section on the sources, we are left with a bare list of two sources, one only in Latin. But Plutarch, Diodorus, Arrian and Justin are *all* now fully online in English translations. More importantly, you simply cannot write a "biography" of Alexander--indeed of most ancient figures--without some reference to the source tradition. Alexander isn't Napoleon or some other absurdly well-documented modern; what we know about him is intimately tied to what ancient authorities said about him. The removal of the any sense of a source tradition is particularly bad in light of some of the decisions, eg., that Roman-era schoolboy exercise the "Letter of Diogenes" given as if it were a contemporary document. For shame! We might as well include Lucian's conversations with the dead Alexander.

Legend

Alexander is one of the world's great culture heroes—a hero to Jews, a prophet to Muslims, subject of one of the most widely-read works of literature, the Alexander Romance, etc. etc.. To eschew mention of this in favor of a lengthy and variably reliable list of his actions is myopic.

Sexuality changes

I changed a few things in the sexuality section and will change more unless citations are forthcoming. There is some very sketchy evidence being put forward as gospel. For example, where does Athenaeus say that Alexander was a "wild paederast"? Give me chapter and verse here.

Changes to Aelian: (1) Hephaestion did not "show" that he was Alexander's lover, he "intimated" it. The verb is ainittomai, to speak in riddles, to intimate. Wilson's Loeb translation is as follows "Note that Alexader laid a wreath at Achilles' tomb and Hephaestion on Patroclus', hinting that he was the object of Alexander's love, a Patroclus was of Achilles." In Greek "Hoti Alexandros ton Achilleos taphon estephanose kai Hephaistion ton tou Patroklou, ainittomenos hoti kai autos en eromenos tou Alexandrou, hosper Achilleos ho Patroklos." (2) "Alexander's lover" to "the object of Alexander's love." Aelian uses the word "eromenos." In conventional Greek pederasty, the "erastes" is the older guy, the "eromenos" the younger. The erastes "does the loving" (use your imagination here), the eromenos receives it. Now, it may well be true that Hephaestion and Alexander had a more equal love. It is often suggested that the scandal, if there was one, was that Alexander had a "lover" his own age, the implication being that Alexander both gave and *received* sexually, the latter being shameful, particularly from an inferior. Or it may be the case, as some have argued, that Macedonians engaged in same-age homosexual relationships without the stigma usually attached to that in southern Greek regions. The fact is,however, that Aelian uses a word with a specific meaning, eromenos.

The Letter of Diogenes. This one is making the rounds a lot. It must be stopped. Classicists are united in thinking the letter a much later rhetorical exercise, not a real letter by the Cynic Philosopher. The whole collection of Diogenes' letters falls into that category. See, for example, OCD2 on "Letters, Greek": "(2) Letters, for the most part spurious, attributed to persons of note, which owe their survival to the general interest of their contents or the reputations of their supposed authors. The spurious letters are sometimes real forgeries; more often they are school exercises or ivnentions intended to illustrate the characters of famous men. … the second sort is chiefly the product of the period 100 BC - AD 200, amongs them those of Anacharsis..., Hippocrates, and Diogenes the Cynic." Now, these letters reference current opinions and may contain contemporary information, but they are not direct sources on the matter.

Lastly, if you want the quotes by Eumenes of Cardia and Athenaeus to stay in, please provide a citation. I think they are, at best, quotes describing something in these authors.

Generally, I am not being hostile to those who claim Alexander was homosexual. I basically agree, so long as ancient sexual mores are understood. But I don't think anything is gained by twisting evidence.

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alexander_the_Great article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Alexander_the_Great}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wars of the Successors, etc.

I removed this section because it didn't seem appropriate for an encylcopedia article about Alexander to cover the dissolution of his empire in such depth and so far in time (to 250 BC and beyond), particularly when there is a fine article on the [Diadochi]. This would be equivalent to ending an entry on Lenin by giving a history of the Soviet Union from his death to the fall of Communism in Europe--it's related, but not really appropriate. I put the text here so we can talk about it, and perhaps rescue pieces for here or there. I'm not going to fight a revert war over this. But I will revert if the reverter doesn't give a defense in the change description, or, preferably, here. [Lectiodifficilior; can't remember how to add that automatically]

Well, Alexander's legacy helps better understand the scope and the consequences of his actions during his brief lifetime. In a sense, his legacy defines the true meaning of his life. However, to you point, I think there's no meaning in going into the details of the Diadochi War. A "Main article:Diadochi" link should help.

Historically, the Hellenistic period (3rd-1st century BCE) is considered as the period of history directly affected by Alexander's conquests. It brought radical political and cultural changes to three continents as a direct consequence of Alexander's actions. That part is probably necessary, but maybe we should try to simplify and structure it. PHG 08:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here goes:

Legacy and division of the Empire

Alexander left a huge empire to his successors who fought for supremacy over portions of his realm. When the dust settled, virtually all of his officers had disposed of their Persian wives, and all but two of his top officers, his mother, his wife Roxana, his son Alexander IV (323-309 BC), his illegitimate son Heracles (327-309 BC), his sister Cleopatra, his half-sister Euridice, and his half-brother Philip III of Macedon, were dead. Only one of them, Antipater, died of natural causes.

Soon after Alexander's death, his soldiers elected his infant son, Alexander, and half-brother, Phillip, to be the successor kings. But young Alexander was just a baby and Phillip suffered from a mental infirmity. Under the circumstances the great commanders of Alexander's army, the diadochi, elected one of their own, Perdiccas, to be regent and chiliarchos. A soldiers assembly formally accepted him and thus Perdiccas was set to rule the empire until Alexander IV reached maturity. However, in the very next year, 322, Perdiccas fell into a conflict with Ptolemy Soter ("the saviour"), one of the diadochoi and current satrap of Egypt. The regent took his army to Egypt in order to punish Ptolemy, but during the event he was killed.

Conflict of the Diadochi

The diadochoi met once again and chose Antipater to be the next regent. But now Eumenes, former secretary of both Alexander and Perdiccas, didn't accept this decision and started a rebellion against the diadochoi. The empire fell into civil war. One of the diadochoi, Antigonus I Monophthalmus (literally "One-eyed"), satrap of Lydia, was able to stop Eumenes. At first, in 317 BC, he tried to defeat Eumenes directly at the Battle of Paraitacene in central Persia, but failed. Eventually, Antigonus had to bribe Eumenes' own soldiers to assassinate him. By this Antigonus was now the most powerful of all the diadochoi.

Meanwhile, back in Macedonia Antipater had died, but not before nominating Polyperchon as the next regent. Antipater's son, Cassander, didn't accept this state of affairs and started a new war (319 BC). During this turmoil, in 317, Olympias tried to dominate Macedonia and Greece and become regent as caretaker of her grandson, Alexander IV. She also ordered the death of Phillip III. Her plan didn't last long. In 316 Cassander conquered Macedonia and sentenced Oympias to death. Now he was the regent.

Antigonus regarded himself as just having been one-upped and now fought against Cassander. The rest of the diadochoi worried that powerful Antigonus would defeat them all one after another, so they formed with Cassander a coalition against him in 315 BC. In 312 Ptolemy conquered Cyprus while Seleucus took Babylon, Elam and Media, where he defeated Antigonus' satraps. Then in 309 Cassander finally disposed of Alexander IV. The boy was by now thirteen years old and the following year he could legitimately rule according to Macedonian law. His mother Roxana was also killed. Cassander kept this all a secret for the next several years, until 305 BC. In the meantime Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander signed a treaty of peace with Antigonos leaving Seleucus alone to fight with him. Seleucus nevertheless managed to defeat Antigonus and conquer eastern Iran. Then in 305-304 BC all of the diadochoi finally learned of the death of Alexander IV and pronounced themselves as the successor kings, each to his own territory. Antigonus accepted none of these other proclamations and started a campaign to become sole ruler of the whole empire. Ultimately, he was defeated in the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. In the aftermath Lysimachus took Asia Minor, Seleucus took Syria and Ptolemy took Palestine.

Partition

So Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Greece, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus I Nicator ("the winner") in Mesopotamia and Iran, and Ptolemy I in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus I ruled for a while in Asia Minor and Syria, but was soon defeated by the other four generals. Control over Indian territory was short-lived, ending when Seleucus I was defeated by Chandragupta Maurya, the first Mauryan emperor.

Soon Lysimachus obtained Cassander's portion (285 BC), and the empire was divided into three major portions, controlled by the descendants of Ptolemy Soter in Egypt, Antigonus in Greece, and Seleucus in the Mideast. By about 281 BC, when Seleucus killed Lysimachus in the battle of Kurypedion, only two dynasties remained in Alexander's old empire — the Seleucid dynasty in the north and the Ptolemaic dynasty in the south.

After the battle of Kurypedion, Seleucus went to Macedonia and was killed by Ptolemaios Keraunos ("the thunder"), a son of Ptolemy I, who escaped from Alexandria. Keraunos became new king of Macedonia, but in 279 BC Macedonia and Greece were invaded by Celts and Keraunos was killed. In 277 BC Antigonus Gonatas, the grandson of Antigonus Monophthalmos, defeated the Celts in the battle of Lysimachia and gained control over Macedonia. The Antigonid dynasty ruled in Macedonia until the Romans conquered the country.

Around 250 BC, the eastern part of the Seleucid Empire seceded under the leadership of its satrap Diodotus, to form the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, which then expanded into India through the conquests of Demetrius, to form the Indo-Greek Kingdom from around 180 BC to 50 BC. The legacy of Alexander in the East was particularly long-lived, and through the development of Greco-Buddhism had an important influence on its arts and religions.

Alexander the great

How true is this? "(present day India not part of conquests - Northern India also misleading as conquests only extended to parts of Punjab (reference maps)". Where are those reference maps? Are there any other resources where we can validate this? dionyziz 14:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Strategies

I believe the article should have a section discussing the strategies Alexander used in battles. I might try and add some info about it soon.--Kross 06:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

^^^^^^ Go to Yellow Pages India and count all the Greek derived names. Do the same from England to India, Russia to Africa and you start to get the picture. --Ephestion

Greek name relevant, but not Macedonian

Regardless of anyone's positions on the Greek/Macedonian controversy, deleting the Greek name and inserting the Macedonian name for "Alexander the Great" is not useful. No ancient text in the Macedonian language is known, none referring to Alexander; and the modern Macedonian phrase is of Slavic etymology, postdating Alexander by a thousand years: i.e., not a phrase anyone would have said in Antiquity. All the ancient historical documents refer to him in either Greek or Latin (later: Persian, Arabic, etc. — still no Macedonian), making it useful to have the man's name in Greek, the language he and his entourage spoke, but not in Macedonian. A Macedonian equivalent is theoretically useful in an English article, but only as useful as remarking that it's "Alessandro Magno" in Italian. — Bill 23:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently spurious reference to Quintus Curtius

A previous edit inserted two references to the ancient Macedonian language: one valid, to Plutarch's Life of Alexander, and one that to me at least appears spurious, to "Curtius, VI.9.37", which I therefore removed. A quick examination of the text of Curtius shows that Book VI Chapter 9 ends in section 36; a somewhat slower trawl thru all of Book VI has me not finding any reference to the Macedonian language being incomprehensible to Greeks. That doesn't mean Curtius didn't write such a thing (sorry if it's there but I have just been unable to find it) but the burden is on the editor to provide a valid citation. — Bill 23:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References to Fox

There are two references in the article to "Fox 108-111". Are these referring to "Fox, Robin L. The Search for Alexander. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980" which is referenced in "medizing" in the discussion area. If so, the book should be listed in the article. If not, what do they refer to? Gedanken

Was Alexander Greek?

This question keeps coming up not least because it has relevance to certain modern nationalist debates. It was however a live debate at the time but posed in a very different way in that at the time it was those Greeks who opposed the Philip and Alexander hegomony who disputed their Greekness. The relavance to this article is that a lot of the opposition to Alexander-Philip was framed in a discourse that the Macedonians were aliens. On the other hand Philip and Alexander were very keen to define themselves as Greek. The conquerer adopting the culture of the conquered was very much par for the course in the pre-print world and see we Alexander doing same thing when he tried to make Persians out of Macedonians. What is striking to me is not the opposition but the extent that the Macedonians were ready go along with it.

It seems to be that the whole Greekness question needs a wider coverage but it should really be part of the Philip article with a link back on the lines of how 'the belief that the Macedonians were non Greek was a key aspect of Greek opposition to Macedonian hegemony'.Dejvid 13:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Can we talk about the Alexander the Great edit? I'm very surprised to find my edit being called biased. I can't stand the usual bias that creeps into the article, most of it based on modern ethnic politics, and don't think this qualifies. The question is: is it accurate to say that Philip “unified” Greece, or is it better to say he brought it under Macedonian hegemony.

I think "unified" gives rather the wrong impression. First, there was no "unified" government of any sort. When Germany or Italy "unified"--and much of the unification language about Philip looks to these great 19th c. unifications--they became unitary states, with common laws, political structures, etc. Nothing of the sort happened under Philip. That sort of political unification had no precedent in Greek history and was not attempted at this time. The closest precedent for Philip's situation is the Athenian empire after it became clear that states could not voluntarily leave it. In Philip's case, most states also entered it involuntarily, which I think it another critical difference between "unification" and "hegemony." Philip's hegemony over Greece was an explicitly military one, won on the battlefield of Chaeronea, maintained through garrisons within the walls of the major Greek states, and which collapsed at his death only to be remade (again on the battlefield) by his son.

Ultimately, a perfect description would include all these details. It might also touch upon the benefits that Macedonian hegemony brought, the great "fatigue" of the Greek states of the 4th century, sentiments of a common "Greekness," at least in so far some thought Greek states should give off fighting each other and fight the Persians instead, etc. etc. But in the short space we have, I think some sort of neutral term like "hegemony" is best. I've toyed with and rejected "forced unification," "Macedonian control," "overlordship," etc.

Oh, I think we also need to retain the sense that Philip brought *most* of the Greek states under his suzerainty. First, there's Sparta, which though a broken reed in the 4th century, still maintained an implacable independence. Even without them, you're leaving out the Greek states of Asia Minor, Sicily, etc.

Comments? If none, I'm going to revert or rewrite. User:Lectiodifficilior

On the three ethnically-based changes

(from description of changes)

Three exclusively ethnic edits, including addition of favoring sources and removal of non-favoring sources. I find this unacceptable. Can we add a short section the issue and keep it out of the the article?

I am not of the opinion that the ancient Macedonians were "racially" distict from other Greeks in any meaningful way, or spoke a very different tongue--certainly not a Slavic one. But the degree of "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians was something Antiquity argued over. They saw cultural differences, and differences of speech, and sources from every period use Macedonian and Greek as terms which could oppose each other. To avoid this common usage is to efface something genuinely ancient in the interest of political advantage.

More broadly, I don't think we should be using Wikipedia to score our narrow little ethnic points. I would not approve of someone going into articles about Palestinians and adding "Arab" in front of the word "Palestinian" everywhere. For, although the Palestinians ARE Arabs, calling them Arabs over and over again is a well-known tactic for denying that they can have an additional or sub-identity anyone is entitled to respect. The situation is much the same here. Adding "Greek," "Greek," "Greek" everywhere is an effort to score points against the current country of Macedonia and its people. It is a very childish and obvious thing to do, like a child putting a lollypop up his nose to spite his parents. The child proves his point—lollypops can indeed fit up a nose—but the activity is nevertheless to be discouraged by adults. Lectiodifficilior 03:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm just weighing in here on a subject I know little about, but surely the best thing to do is to write a section for the article headed 'Alexander's nationality' or something like that, and explain both sides of the question there. Clearly the question of whether Alexander was Macedonian or Greek was a controversial one in his own time as well as in ours. If this issue was actually explained somewhere near the beginning of the article, casual readers would be less likely to be misled by the occasional additions of Greek or Macedonian-biased editors, which are probably inevitable. The Singing Badger 14:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that. (Indeed, I think I suggested it.) But let's just note, you wouldn't find that in a "real" enyclopedia. As an alternate how about a totally new page devoted to the "Ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians"? I'd rather get the topic off the page and onto somewhere else—although that page would swiftly degenerate into name-calling—than keep revisiting some compromise wording on this page. After all, we could have this argument on every single ancient Macedonian's wikipedia page. There are hundreds of such pages on Wikipedia! I understand there's some debate about the ethnic and linguistic origins of the Japanese. I know, let's fight it out on the Seiji Ozawa page! Lectiodifficilior 06:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the discussion should be restricted to Talk:Macedon as much as possible. We say on Macedon that it was a (literally) borderline case of 'Hellenic'. It may be said without doubt, otoh, that Alexander spread "Hellenic" rule etc., since by the 4th century, Macedon was almost completely Hellenized itself. Macedon in 550 BC may not have been "Hellenic" by any definition, but its upper class (which is what counts for the 'spread of Hellenism') was entirely so by 350 BC. dab (ᛏ) 11:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that a 'real' encyclopedia wouldn't discuss this; I think a m,odern one probably would, perhaps when discussing Alexander's modern legacy. I also disagree that the discussion should be restricted to other pages. Alexander is the most famous Greek-Macedonian (or whatever!) and this page will thus always be a target for pro-Greek bigots and pro-Macedonian bigots to try to promote their agendas. It's much better to explain the controversy openly on the page, as it would at least mean that the bigots would concentrate on one section. This has worked in the past. I myself wrote a 3-sentence section entitled 'Alexander's sexuality' a few months ago in order to concentrate the endless edit wars over whether Ax was gay or not. Now the section has been expanded by others into a long and NPOV examination of the subject and there have been less annoying edits to the main article. I believe a section on 'Alexander's ethnicity', perhaps with a link to a longer article on Macedonian ethnicity, might well solve the current problem. Unless there is a strong disagreement, I will be happy to start the ball rolling, although I've no expertise in the area. The Singing Badger 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Badger, you've convinced me. I like to avoid playing with fire, but your sexuality example looks like a good one to follow. I'm going to revert the latest ethnic reversion and add a section referencing Macedon and Talk:Macedon. I'm leaving it raw; first, I don't want to write it (as I said); second, I don't think I should be trusted to write it. Let's see how that goes. Lectiodifficilior 08:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I wrote something. But I don't know my Aristotle from my Euboea, so it's going to need some checking by the wiser. The Singing Badger 16:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A separate section is probably the best but it is not just a modern debate. The anti Macedon party in Greece as vehemently denied his Greekness as the supporters of Macedon were to say they were. In the ancient world it was Greeks who were foremost in rejecting the idea that he was Greek but they often focused on things that the modern debate ignores. It is different from the sexuality question because no one really cared much about that but whether the Macedonians were Greek is relevant to the politics of the time. It explains why the the Greeks took every chance to rebel and why the Greeks held so few high up positions under Alexander.Dejvid 19:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this web page has been created by prejudiced individuals that seem to ignore facts on purpose. Alexander was Hellene, Greek from Macedonia, period. The adjective Macedonian is used similarly to Athenian, Ionian, and Spartan etc. You choose to exclude Herodotus and you include quotes from Demosthenes an adversary of Macedonians that in fact criticized their different political system. I am sick of this propaganda from the Slavs that seems to be quite welcomed by a bunch of ignorant individuals for different reasons. In particular the ethnicity part is a joke.

Ancient Macedonians were one of more than the 230 Hellenic tribes, sub-tribes, and families of the Hellenic Nation that spoke more than 200 dialects. For more information see Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius, Strabo, Nevi'im, Ketuvim, Apocrypha (Macabees I, 1-2). It was not until 1945 that their Hellenism has been challenged by the Slavs for expansionistic reasons.

What Alexander said about himself?

"For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Hellas change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb])

"Tell your king (Xerxes), who sent you, how his Greek viceroy (Alexander I) of Macedonia has received you hospitably." (Herod. V, 20, 4 [Loeb])

"Now, that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, as they themselves say, I myself chance to know." (Herod. V, 22, 1 [Loeb])

The country by the sea which is now called Macedonia... Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his forefathers, who were originally Temenidae from Argos" (Thucydides 99,3 (Loeb, C F Smith)

"But Alexander (I), proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek; so he contended in the furlong race and ran a dead heat for first place." (Herod. V, 22, 2)

After the battle of Granicus, Alexander sent the Athenians 300 full suits of Persian armor as a present, with the following inscription: "Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, dedicate these spoils, taken from the Persian who dwell in Asia.

The fact is that Alexander the Great considered himself and his Macedonians, Greek. He claimed ancestry on his mother’s side from Achilles and on his father’s side from Hercules (Heracles). His ancestor, Alexander I, stated that he was Greek (Herodotus, Histories, V, 20, 22; VIII, 137; IX, 45)

Ethnicity: Participation in the Olympic Games was unequivocally and definitely a function that only athletes of strictly Hellenic origin could partake. Archelaus had won in the Olympic and Pythian Games (Solinus 9, 16) and Alexander I had also won in the Olympic Games (Herodotus, Histories, V, 22).

"The Macedonian people and their kings were of Greek stock, as their traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify." ` {John Bagnell Bury, "A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great", 2nd ed.(1913)

"Clearly, the language of the ancient Macedonians was Greek" {Prof. John C. Roumans Professor Emeritus of Classics Wisconsin University}

"There is no doubt, that Macedonians were Greeks." (Robin Lane Fox "Historian-Author"

Obviously, the ancient Macedonians spoke a language in the Hellenic family. My understanding was that it was probably different enough from Attic or Doric as to be mutually incomprehensible, but the evidence is of course rather sparse. At any rate, I find the theoretical claims of Slavic Macedonians utterly incomprehensible in this - whatever Alexander may have been, he certainly was not a Slav. john k 04:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Alexander

Some questions for unbiased reasearchers?

- Aristotle desbite being an intelectual,had the narrow precept that non-Greeks should be treated as slaves. Would a non Greek trust the education of his son to a Greek nationalist?

- Why Macedonians participated in the Olympic games if they were a diferrent race?

- Why they spread the Hellenic culture and not their own indigenous one (if they were a different race)?

- Mount Olympos is in Macedonia, would the Greeks place the land of their ancestors in a non associated nation?

- The Greek mythology shows account of the relation that existed among all Greek tribes including Macedonians as they were all offsprings of Deukalion and Phyrra

And now for some Iranian edits

I'm really tired of these ethnic edits. If it's not a spate of edits designed to add "Greek" everywhere and twit current residents of the Republic of Macedonian it's a spate of pro-Persian edits. Some notes:

Roxane was Bactrian or Sogdian, not Persian per se.
India was a historical part of the Persian empire—this was one justification put forward for Alexander's conquests—but at the time of Darius III it was not under their control.
In many ways, Alexander did follow Persian precedent and model himself or was modeled by others after Cyrus, but these edits come in on a raft of ethnic changes.

I'm tired of edits intended to promote one or another nation's claim to Alexander and safeguard him against contenders. --Lectiodifficilior

Oh Please!

To "Lectiodifficilior", who vandalized all corrections I entered in this article:

I am sorry about your "difficulty" with Iranians and other "ethnic" people as you put it. Please keep your emotions out of Wikipedia, or take your ideas to www.STORMFRONT.org. The edits I made are not "Iranian" as you suggested. Your problem is that you have not read a book or listened to a lecture on Alexander at a WESTERN (American, or European) university. The information I am about to repost is widely accepted by both sides of the debate and that's why it was entered here, as a correction to the existing article.

Response from Lectiodifficilior: First. I am quite sure I have better formal education than you do on this topic. Why don't we agree to make that the winning condition? I'd be quite glad to pony up my university and graduate school records against yours. Or why don't we get someone to give us both translation exercises in Greek and Latin? Ever, say, lectured on the topic, or delivered a talk at an academic conference? I will gladly concede your right to call me a racist if you allow any of these conditions to be tested by a neutral third party.

Feel free to vandalize this article again if you have sources that counter the established facts I have entered (aside from www.stormfront.org or something you saw in a hollywood movie).

Response from Lectiodifficilior: I'm sorry to have been away for two days. I will be glad to continue removing your edits for as long as it takes to get a neutral party to look at our disagreement.

By the way you seem to be illiterate:

Response from Lectiodifficilior: Do you think these insults will help your case in arbitration?

-The correction I made to Roxana was to the linguistic origin of the name. ROSHANAK IS A PERSIAN WORD AND THE LANGUAGE OF BOTH BACTRIA AND MODERN AFGHANISTAN IS ALSO PREDOMINENTLY PERSIAN. Bactrian and Persian were also largely synonymous in ancient times, and even today to some extent. AGAIN PLEASE DON'T TOUCH THINGS YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.

Response from Lectiodifficilior: Bactrian and Sogdian were Iranian languages, like Persian, but they were not "synonymous." The modern languages of the region—are you seriously going to use this as your evidence for the 330s BC? Some sources. Again,

1. http://www.gengo.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~hkum/bactrian.html — Source: Professor Nicholas Sims-Williams of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London"; Quote:

"Bactrian, the ancient language of Bactria in northern Afghanistan, is unique among the Iranian languages in being written by means of the Greek alphabet --- a legacy of the conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in the 4th cent. B.C. From this period onwards theGreek language, written in the Greek script, was for a long time the exclusive language of culture and administration in Bactria. When Bactria was overrun by nomadic peoples from the north, its new rulers, the Kushans, at first continued the use of the Greek language for administrative purposes, but soon they came to use the Greek script to write the local language, Bactrian. A crucial moment in the history of this language was the decision of the Kushan ruler Kanishka to adopt Bactrian as the language of his coinage. After the first issues of Kanishka, Greek disappears from the coinage once and for all, to be replaced by Bactrian.

"During the first centuries of the Christian era, Bactrian could legitimately have been ranked amongst the world's most important languages. As the language of the Kushan kings, Bactrian must have been widely known throughout a great empire, in Afghanistan, Northern India and part of Central Asia. Even after the collapse of the Kushan empire, Bactrian continued in use for at least six centuries, as is shown by the ninth-century inscriptions from the Tochi valley in Pakistan [Slide 1 9KB] and the remnants of Buddhist and Manichean manuscripts found as far away as the Turfan oasis in western China. (This slide, for instance [Slide 2 12KB], shows the unique fragment of a Bactrian text written in Manichean script, which forms part of the Turfan collection in Berlin.) The career of Bactrian as a language of culture thus lasted for close to a thousand years."

2. Source: Encyclopedia Iranica http://www.iranica.com/articles/v7/v7f6/v7f659.html . Quote:

"By the Middle Iranian stage, when a larger number of distinct languages are attested, a classification into Western and Eastern Iranian becomes more meaningful. While Western Middle Iranian is represented by Middle Persian and Parthian, the chief Eastern Middle Iranian languages are Khotanese (with the closely related Tumshuqese), Sogdian, Chorasmian, and Bactrian, to which one may add the remnants of such languages as Sarmatian and Alanic (R. Bielmeier in Schmitt, pp. 236-45; cf. also Sims-Williams, ibid., pp. 165-67), together with the "Parnian" stratum in Parthian (Sims-Williams, ibid., p. 171) and reconstructed proto-forms of Eastern Iranian languages attested only in the modern period, e.g., "proto-Pashto."

Go ahead and Google up language trees, etc. Oh, and see J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans (1989) pp. 15, 51, 53.

-We refer to ancient places by their names at the time of the events; India is properly refered to as the Indus Valley in all articles discussing that region, and indeed geographically it is only Pakistan that we are talking about here, not the Indian subcontinent. PS: The Indus valley was a tribute bearing region to Persia at the time of Daris III.

Response from Lectiodifficilior: What are we arguing about here? All we have to do is make the situation clear. When modern encyclopedia readers hear that Alexander conquered "India" they think something more expansive than was the case. The problem is a tension between the "India" of Antiquity, that of modernity up to 1948 and of post 1948. Any wording that gets the right impression across is fine with me.

-The descriptions of Alexander's tactics and bahaviour as following that of the Acheamenids is sourced from American, Canadian and European universities and publications, so your suggestion that this is an ethnic guy with an ethnic name trying to push an agenda is invalid and highly inflamitory.

Response from Lectiodifficilior: India was not a tribute-bearing region at the time of Darius III. Here are three passages from three of the standard histories—Fox, Green and Wilken. If you really want to dispute this, I will be glad to get your many more such quotes.

"So far, Alexander's ambitions had been easily understood. He had first conquered Darius, then claimed his empire, marching out to its north-east frontier but going to further. West Pakistan, which the ancient called India, had also been a part of the Persian empire, but the frontier which had once stretched into the Punjab had been lost for a hundred years, and if Alexander kneew this fact of Persian history it is doubtful whether it influenced his Indian plans. In India he would soon go beyong the Persians' boundaries where there was no longer an empire to be reclaimed." - Robin Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (1973), p. 331

"Two centuries earlier, Cyrus the Great had created an 'Indian province' between Peshawar and the northern Punjab ... by the fourth century Persia had abandoned her Indian satrapies, and even while 'Hindush' was part of the empire it remained largely _terra incognita_, a region of myth and fable, like Medieval Cathay. … Alexander had several cogent motives for invading this mysterious wonderland. As self-proclaimed Great King, he meant to recover Cyrus' lost satrapies. …" - Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon, (1991 edition), pp. 379-380

"Those scholars who hold the view that he never aimed at world empire at all, see in this resolve [ie. to go to India] nothing but the intention of personally taking possession of the Persian empire in its fullest extent, or of restoring the frontiers of the empire, as they had been under Darius I. But Alexander's proceedings in India are not thereby explained; for he never went far beyond these frontiers. Darius I had conquered the north-west corner only up to the Indus…" — Ulrich Wilken, Alexander the Great translated from the German by C. C.. Richards, (967) p. 173

You guys need to include the thing at the bottom where it says who he was succeeded by and whp he proceeded. It was here I dont know why it was removed please put it back.

Is "Descendent of Achilles" really a title?

I was a little awestruck at seeing something such as Descendent of Achilles: 356-323 in a list of Alexander's titles. I think that is not a real title, so I'm asking for your opinions on whether it should be deleted. It's obvious Alexander's grandfather claimed to descend from Achilles, and so did his mother Olympias in consequence, but I still think that this does not apply as a title such as "Basileus" or the like.

Another thing which I saw at a related article (the Olympias article) and that this time was just plain gutwrenching was to find that someone wrote that Olympias was grand-daughter to Achilles, obviously led by the mistake that her father Neoptolemus, king of Epirus, was the same Neoptolemus, son of Achilles. The only problem is that the time gap between Olympias and Achilles is obviously a huge one, amounting, I believe, to some 25 generations. I ask for the help of the good writes around and also historians, to clean-up the Olympias article.

More on titles

Is "son of Ammon-Zeus" really a title? What are we trying to say here? Are they "things he could be called"? "Things he actually was called?" I find the whole idea stupid. Alexander wasn't like a member of the British royalty, sporting accumulated titles. ("Now I'm Duke of Whimbley AND King of Asia!") The whole section is ahistorical and strange—I beg someone to find a similar section in the PW, Oxford Classical Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica.

I vote we delete it entirely. Unless I get some serious objections in the next few days, that's what I'll do.

Other problems: "Throne of Halicarnassus." (1) There was no such thing. Ada was satrap of Caria. True, the position was probably based on a native (Mylassan) dynasteia, and had passed through one family—except at the end, with Orontobates. But calling it a "throne" overplays it. Ada was satrap at Alexander's pleasure. The "adoption" may have been a face-saving gesture; it was no more. (2) Ada was dead by 323. I recall the date's a little dicey, and I'm not inclined to search it down since I want to kill the whole section.

Edits on Tarn and Green

I'd like to discuss this paragraph, entered by User:Kulindar.

Alexander's character also suffers from the interpretation of historians who themselves are subject to the bias and idealisms of their own time. Good examples are W. W. Tarn, who wrote during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and who saw Alexander in an extremely good light, and Peter Green, who wrote after the Second World War and for who Alexander did little that was not inherantly selfish or ambition-driven. Tarn wrote in an age where world conquest and warrior-heroes were acceptable, even encouraged, whereas Green wrote with the backdrop of the Holocaust and atomic bomb. As a result, Alexander's character is skewed depending on which way the historian's own culture is, and further muddles the debate of who he truly was.

I feel that this paragraph—although true enough—only scratches the surface of Alexander historiography. To get this right would take a full section reviewing the various consensuses and consensus shifts. (Tarn and Green would be there, but they would hardly be the twin peaks of the topic.) But the article is already overlong. I'd favor deleting this paragraph, perhaps removing it to a dedicated article on the topic.

Generally, I think the article needs cutting. In the last Talk post I proposed killing the "titles" section. Other suggestions along these lines would be welcome. Lectiodifficilior 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. A "Main article: whatever" link would be in order. But what would the new article be? Historiography of Alexander sounds as though it might be an eternal stub. Perhaps moving his military career to a new article, leaving only a medium-longish summary? I don't see that as ideal either, though. One-dimensional Tangent 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be an eternal stub, but is it okay Wikipedia policy? I mean, every article could have some variant on that sort of spin-off. Lectiodifficilior 07:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language of Alexander

If there is any serious claim about the language of Alexander the Great, or the dialect spoken in Macedonia at or before his time, being other than Greek, I offer to pay a ticket to any museum for a non-expert (but educated) speaker of this language and see if he/she can understand more scriptures from that place and period than a non-expert Greek as myself. See also Ancient Macedonian language. The comment that modern Greeks are not 100%, pure descendants of classic Greeks is correct but irrelevant. The fact that the population of Great Britain is different from what it was 3 or 4 centuries ago is not an argument for denying the "Britishness" of Shakespeare. Ulixes

The Macedonians spoke a language which was similar to Greek, certainly, and were seen by the Greeks as a related people. The Ancient Greeks were pretty divided, however, as to whether the Macedonians were actually Greeks, or merely a related people. Of course, the Macedonians were not modern Macedonian Slavs, but I don't think anyone (except a few vandals) has argued that. But it is just as problematic to describe him as a Greek, imo. Certainly, as someone pointed out above, the terms "Greek" and "Macedonian" were often used exclusively of each other. "Eumenes was a Greek, not a Macedonian," or whatever. john k 20:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. But the confusing part here is that the concept of nationality is relatively new, and at that time there was no common Greek identity. For example, in Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes", the Theban chorus sing that the Argean army is "alien-tongued" [1](this is a very accurate translation). Obviously this is a poetic exaggeration but it is not anything the Athenian audience would find too weird. A Theban was a foreigner to an Argean in the same sense that a Frenchman is a foreigner to a German since there is no common European identity although you can imagine it happening at some time in the future. Of course the inverse can also happen (for example the Nordic peoples differentiated relatively recently). I think that to draw (a very uncertain) line between Greeks and non-Greeks at that time, we should take into account language, religion, customs and so on, rather than, let's say, the politically heated speeches of Demosthenes. Very often it is stated that the Macedonians deliberatelly classified themselves to Greeks for political reasons, but it is understated that the opposite could also have hapenned i.e. non-Macedonians claiming that the Macedonians were not Greek to promote their interests. My position is that by criteria which have nothing to do with what other people thought of the Macedonians, they qualify as Greeks as much as Spartans or Cretans, at least from the time of Alexander I and on. Anyway I think that beyond any short-sighted nationalist or other prejudice, this discussion is interesting and useful (for events that took place so long ago) because it is similar to current issues, like who is European and who is not (and consequently where does the European integration stop), which have an impact to the real world. Ulixes 23:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing cleanup tag

I'm removing the cleanup tag added 6 Apr 2005. I didn't see a reason given for the tag either here in the Talk or on Wikipedia:Cleanup, so I don't know what specific problem it was meant to address. The article history only says "Shall I state the obvious?" for the edit that added the cleanup. Perhaps the editor meant to add an NPOV tag? In any case, if someone feels that the article does indeed still warrant cleanup feel free to put the tag back -- just please tell us your reasons, so that we know what to fix. One-dimensional Tangent 20:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Slav

An anon user recently added the word "Slav" in several places in a way that can appear to be agenda-pushing. It seems that there have been many similar problems in the past. I'm boldly interfering, but giving my reasons for my changes. If someone disagrees, do please make a note here of why.

From the article: "Both Greek and Macedonian Slav nationalists have claimed Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation." In this case it seems that "Macedonian nationalist is the correct term, since "Macedonian Slav"s exist in every nation of the region of Macedonia, including the nations Republic of Macedonia and the Hellenic Republic (Greece). Non-slav residents of the Republic of Macedonia have just as much claim to Alexander as Slavic residents of the Republic of Macedonia. The intent of the sentence is to name two countries and note that both claim Alexander; it is not a matter of who resides in those countries.

"However, this debate is ahistorical, since modern Macedonians Slavs are Slavs who are ethnically and linguistically unrelated to the ancient Macedonians." This one's harder. "Macedonians Slavs are Slavs" is redundant, but the previous "Macedonians are Slavs" is untrue; only 2/3 of the residents of the Republic of Macedonia are Slavs (according to the Macedonian Slavs article), and certainly many inhabitants of the region Macedonia (distinct from the nation) are not Slavic. Further, "ethnically ... unrelated to the ancient Macedonians" is suspect; the Macedonian Slavs article says it well: "while they undoubtedly have a Slavic heritage, the question of whether they are 'immigrants' or the descendants of the ancient Macedonians remains disputed". But, regardless, there doesn't seem to be any reason to argue this; a competent reader doesn't need to be told that such debates are ahistorical: neither the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia nor the Hellenic Republic existed in the time of Alexander, neither has the same borders as its conterpart in antiquity, and the entire region has been conquered by two different empires in the meantime. Hopefully there won't be any objections to removing the last two sentences of the paragraph.

Related articles: Macedonian Slavs; Republic of Macedonia as distinct from Macedonia; Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Naming dispute with Greece; Rainbow Party (another interest of the same anon).

One-dimensional Tangent 23:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen...

Let's get something nice and clear, the debate on the Hellenic status of ancient Macedonian people is irrelevant to the modern political dispute between FYROM and Greece. First of the debate is on the language of the Macedonians and whether should it be considered a Greek dialect or a language related to Greek. The Royal family of Macedon (including Philip II and Alexander III) were acknowledged by everyone in antiquity to be of Greek descent, as they would also admit themselves. Hence the section on "Alexander's ethnic background" (which I removed) is completely based on modern day nationalist conflicts, irrelevant to the article and Alexander himself. The rest of changes I made were on the constant distinction between Greek and Macedonian culture. No matter what language Macedonians spoke prior to Philip II, their ethnic status after Alexander's conquests becomes indistinguishable from Greek (hence the name 'Hellenistic period'). Miskin

I would very much like all the ethnic politics to be removed from this entry--off-loaded into another article, for example. But this noble goal is not going to be achieved by systemmatically removing the words "Macedonian" and replacing it with Greek. It is not polemical but entirely in accord with ancient practice to use the words together, nor does it beg questions of identity. By speaking of "Greek" and "Macedonian" units in Alexander's army we do not assert anything about the ultimate identity or kinship of these groups. We do draw a useful distinction between military units with different organization, equipment, origins and histories. Similarly, I think it is fair to talk of Greek and Macedonian colonization as some cultural differences can be detected and, at least as far as the Hellenistic monarchies, a distinctly "Macedonian" stamp remains until the end.

I think this article is a mess, strewn with the verbal ruins of a hundred ethnic battles. But are not going to clean it up by eliding the word "Macedonian" wherever it offends our eye.

On another edit, although we should certainly get rid of modern politics, we shouldn't remove ancient politics. That some Greek opponents of Philip and Alexander, like Demosthenes, claimed that the Macedonians were barbarians is a fact, regardless of whether the statement is. As Demosthenes was one of the chief lights of political opposition to Macedon, and his writings survive, it is a germane fact. The trick is in mentioning this without using it for modern political ends. I'm not convinced the current wording does this, but I don't favor cutting it out, particularly rolled up with a whole bunch of other deletions.

Lastly, as I've said before, I'm tired of "ethnic" edits. If someone wants to fool with the ethnic text, let him or her also show some interest—and demonstrate some competence—in the other sections. A disinterested concern for "truth" does not shine through a monomaniacal concern for "fixing" a few passages in what remains a deeply flawed, unbalanced and occassionally dead-wrong article. Lectiodifficilior 17:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, the "Ethnicity of Alexander and the Macedonians" section was added in order to document the classical and modern controversies surrounding Alexander's ethnicity. The classical controversy was important to Alexander and many of the people and cities with which he interacted; therefore at least the classical controversy is something that should be documented. That there is a modern controversy is provably true, and since it touches on larger ethnic and political issues, at least to me it doesn't seem that a mention of the modern controvesy (as is done in the first paragraph of the section) is a problem. If so, then the only remaining paragraph questionable on grounds of relevence is the last paragraph, which (as of the time I'm writing) reads: The controversy remains potent in modern times, because the area corresponding to Ancient Macedon is now divided between the modern state of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Both Greek and Macedonian nationalists have claimed Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation. It briefly describes the nature of the modern controvesy in a way that, at least to me, seems very NPOV. For these reasons I think that the section should remain. Now, you have said that there is false information in this section, and that's a different problem. If you would calmly bring forward the claims that you consider false, or the wording that you consider biased, then perhaps we can work this out. -- One-dimensional Tangent 21:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few points before re-editing

Some important points about NPOV:

The controversy remains potent in modern times, because the area corresponding to Ancient Macedon is now divided between the modern state of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Both Greek and Macedonian nationalists have claimed Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation.

Like the article Macedonia correctly describes, the borders of the region of Macedonia vary according the the chronological period. The ancient region of Macedon corresponds to the Nothern province of Greece which is called 'Macedonia'. The Roman province of Macedonia covered a much larger territory which included Thessaly, parts of Epirus and Thrace. The region of Macedonia that was divided between Greece, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in 1913 after the Balkan Wars, corresponds mainly to Northern Greece and smaller parts in FYROM, Bulgaria and Albania. Since the article Alexander the Great is about the ancient region of Macedon, I suppose it's logical to agree that this paragraph is out of context.

Secondly. The phrase Greek and Macedonian nationalists will change permanently into Greek and Macedonian Slav nationalists. Macedonian Slavs is (for the time being) the politically and academically correct nationality of FYROM (ethnic Albanians excluded). It is also the name accepted by wikipedia for the reasons that are explained in detail in the article Macedonian Slav. Whoever revert those changes will officially declare a biased point of view.

I just noticed that the unofficial name Republic of Macedonia was linked as opposed to the internationally accepted by the UN 'FYROM'. It is evident that this article has been heavily ravaged by nationalists, so I'll be on watch. The most ironic thing is that the information provided here contradicts other related wikipedia articles such as Macedon and Macedonia.

For these reasons I think that the section should remain. Now, you have said that there is false information in this section, and that's a different problem. If you would calmly bring forward the claims that you consider false, or the wording that you consider biased, then perhaps we can work this out.

The false information are being provided. Two other things that have to change (after a mutually acceptable discussion) are:

The section "ethnicity of Alexander the Great": The ethnic debate is not, not, NOT about Alexander the Great. The Royal family of Macedon has been always recognised to be of Greek origin. The debate is about the vernacular language of the Macedonian people, and whether it was a Greek dialect or a language related to Greek forming a Greco-Macedonian group (for details see Ancient Macedonian Language. When we have a bunch of historians who describe in detail the origin of Macedonian royals, it is false information to create an argument on the ethnicity of Alexander the Great. I can personally provide with quotes that verify this (even from reliable classic historians such as Thucydides), before I add Alexander's Greek ethnicity in the article. I don't want to proceed with this without seeking approval.

The article claims that there are classic sources which doubt the Greekness of ancient Macedonians. This is a common (intentional) misinterpration of ancient texts, which sources mainly by the ignorance of the classic Greek political conflicts. The most typical examples is the Philippics by Demosthenes. I'm sure that people who have read the entire speech as opposed to isolated quotes, are aware that Demosthenes doesn't mean to insult Philip in a racial context (in the way that it's interpreted by modern nationalists), but at a political. In other words, those texts who supposedly claim Macedonians to be different from Greeks, are misinterpretations of isolated quotes that are meant to change the original meaning of the author. I provoke anyone who disagrees to paste here some of these quotes and receive the appropriate answers. If that doesn't happen, I'll assume that everybody is agreed with me, and since you all want the political conflicts to stay in the article, I will just re-edit them.

As a last point. Despite what people on the internet say, the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia does NOT officially claim heritage to real (ancient) Macedonia and Alexander the Great. The evidence is below:

Former President of FYROM declared:

“We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century AD ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

and:

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

Ambassador of FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM's Ambassador to Canada:

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."

I expect some comments and then I'm re-editing.

Miskin

Response to Miskin

NOTE: Lectiodifficilior has re-edited this to make it clear who is talking. I would very much prefer if we added our comments sequentially. I do not appreciate my comments being edited, nor I bet do you. So, can we agree to keep our comments separate?

Lectiodifficilior: If you "re-edit" I will block you edit for edit until we get arbitration. It is clear from your posts that you are consumed in modern polemic on this topic, and seek to bend it to your views.

Miskin: Are you asking me if I'm Greek? Yes I am ethnic Greek and concerned about this topic, but I don't see how that implies a biased point of view. My version of the story is that I know more about you on this topic and therefore entitled to correct you. If you think that my views are wrong, that's something which you must explicitly prove by refuting my arguments. Calling me biased because in your world that is probably the default configuration for a Greek, is obviously a very weak argument which cannot prevent me from editing this travesty. I remind you that I was the one who suggested all those political issues to be removed in the first place. Since you insist on keeping them on, I'm obliged at least to provide the truth. The information provided in this article at the moment is already bend towards a nationalistic, biased and incorrect POV, what I want to do is straighten it back to neutrality. Unfortunately, not only you lack the knowledge to realise this, but you also lack the capability of understanding simple concepts that are analytically explained to you. If you block me from editing, you will have officially declared your incompetence to argue with me on an intellectual level. I will come back, one way or another, but your moronic attitude will remain on record until you pay its price.

Lectiodifficilior: No I wasn't asking you if you were Greek. You brought that idea up. I was stating that you are consumed with injecting modern politics into ancient contexts.

Re: "I know more about this topic," I very much doubt that is the case. Certainly you don't know either way. But you should either stop insulting my competence or agree to some method of ascertaining it. Compare university and graduate transcripts?

Lectiodifficilior: 1. Certainly the Greekness of the Macedonian royal family was an object of contention in Antiquity. I draw your attention to the harrangues of Demosthenes, for starters. I regret this does not compare with the sort of evidence you think is relevant. I shall see what the Canadian ambassador has to say.

Lectiodifficilior: 2. Certainly it's important to see the larger context—Demosthenes would have accused Philip of having halitosis if he thought it would help him. But regarless of his motive Demosthenes was in fact trying to promote the idea that Philip and Macedonians were not Greek, and to use that as another reason for patriotic Athenians to hate and oppose him.

Miskin: Before I start quoting from sources: Have you personally read the full speeches of Demosthenes to know what he was on about? Demosthenes doesn't accuse the Macedonians as non-Greeks. The Macedonians had been part of the Hellenic league and the Pan-Hellenic events (held only for Greeks) since over a century before Philip II. Demosthenes accuses Philip II for breaking the rules of the Pan-Hellenic and forcing Macedon into the Amphyctions. Do you even know what that is or am I speaking Chinese? The Aphyctionic league was a counsil in which not all Greek states can participate (in Demosthenes' own words). If Macedon was not a Greek state who conquered Greeks, then why on earth would Demosthenes expect it to obey the Greek rules, and what good it would make to complain about it? Demosthenes is vexed by Macedon's rise to power, because as himself affirms in the Olynthiacs, Philip's predecessors paid allegiance to Athens, which in turn should pay allegiance to no-one. Spartans are the "true born sons of Greece" because the bloody Peloponnese is located to the geographical region that was known as "Greece" (which didn't include Macedon prior to Alexander's conquests). Demosthenes uses the word "barbarian" against Philip in a cultural level not a racial one, and the greatest proof of this, is that Demosthenes was only half-Greek himself, while Philip hailed from Hercules (whether or not that is true is irrelevant, back then they believed it). Have you learned your lesson or shall I start quoting and analysing from the original sources?

Lectiodifficilior Yes, I have. I haven't, actually, read "all the speeches"—Demosthenes is boring, I prefer Lysias—but I have read the Philippics. Mostly, I see no need to dispute that Demosthenes harrangued against Philip as a barbarian. He clearly did. This doesn't make it true, nor is the situation here or with Greek understanding of Greek/non-Greek simple.

Miskin:Since you at least agree that it doesn't make it true, what is the point of citing as evidence for something? There are hundreds of other quotes (even by Demosthenes) that imply the opposite. So do you agree to take it off or not? Of course you realise that in order to make it NPOV we should also add all ancient quotations that contradict it.

Lectiodifficilior: Because the question "were the Macedonians Greeks" is a very impoverished question. To raise it begs all sorts of questions about what that would mean. Is "Greekness" about "blood," "language," group identity, shared mental universes of the Macedonians, shared histories, shared perceptions by non-Macedonians, or something else entirely? All of these are heavily "constructed" notions. Even without that, there are very real problems of degree and of knowability. Lastly, the empirical question has no actual impact on the events. Ancient understandings of ethnicity, language and nation were different than ours. By contrast, the question "What did contemporaries think of the Greekness of Alexander and the Macedonians?" has far fewer problems, provided we also explore what they meant when they said that. For example, your notion that Demosthenes didn't think the Macedonians were "racially" different is all wrong in so far as "race" is a very modern way of thinking about the issue. Lectiodifficilior 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin:Good question. Those 'constructed' as you put it notions were constructed at an ancient time, and its those ancient criteria we're using for our classification. According to Herodotus, Greek peoples recognised each other by being:

ομόαιμοι
ομόθρησκοι
ομόγλωσσοι

That is, "same blood", "same religion", "same language". Not that for the "racial" distinction he uses the word 'aima' (blood) instead of 'fylo'. He uses the word 'fylo' to make his tribal distinctions between Greeks (which verifies what I've been explaining). In fact the term "omoaimoi" (same blood) doesn't really imply a common "racial" status, but rather a common geographical origin (which would be mainland Greece). In Mycenaean times Greek-speaking peoples were found almost solely in the peninsula of Greece, but after the invasion of Dorians and the great colonisations, the term "omoaimoi" was introduced in order to distinct between colonisers from Greece and Hellenised people. In pro-colonisation times the terms 'Greeks/Hellenes' and 'Greece/Hellas' did not exist to describe the entire Greek "nation", which eventhough it had a common language and religion, referred to itself by its tribal names. This is verified by Homer who refers to the "Greek" allies as "Argives", "Achaeans" and "Danaans", while the terms 'Hellenes/Graekoi' are used solely for the clans of 'Hellas' in Thessaly. Therefore we know that it became generalised for all Greek peoples at a later stage. What I'm trying to say is that the basic criteria are "same language" and "same religion", as they were defined by other ancient Greek scholars. However Herodotus gives a detailed account on the origin of Macedonians (Makednoi) to be of Greek tribal origin, and specifically Dorian (like himself). If that's really the case then the "same language" criterion would be verified by default (and pretty much is). The "same religion" is already common knowledge. Demosthenes cannot have launched a "racial" attack against Macedonians, for all the reasons that I've already mentioned.

He constantly accuses Philip, not Macedonians in general,
Philip's legendary Greek origin was already recorded propagaded throughout the Greek World, so it doesn't make sense to try to question it,
Macedon was for centuries in the Hellenic league already, Philip had recently forced himself into the Aphyctions,
Demosthenes makes constant references to the superiority of Athens,
Demosthenes is only half-Greek himself.

Lectiodifficilior: 3. Lay off the "internationally accepted" FYROM stuff. There is a name dispute. The United States is among the states not party to that notion. [2] Let us therefore seek some compomise wording such as "Republic of Macedonia, also known as the 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and then, crucially, shut up about it already. The rest of us would like to concentrate on all the non-hot-button problems with the page, and not see the talk page defaced with cut-and-paste quotations from contemporary diplomats and newspapers.

Miskin: Have you ever heard of the UN? Look it up. What America and Russia have recognised is irrelevant to what's considered official in the rest of the world. Besides, it is USA right now who is proposing a new name scheme for FYROM. If you keep referring them as ROM you're openly declaring a NPOV (and will of course pay for it). The cut-and-paste is called evidence, probably a word that that has a blurry definition in your head.

Lectiodifficilior: You're right, the United Nations accepted them as the FYROM. Other nations, including the United States ("look it up") and they themselves refer to themselves as the ROM. This would seem to be the definition of a disputed name. I understand you think that by calling attention to this dispute, I am somehow being NPOV. That's a very strange idea. I'm not saying we should say either ROM or FYOM. I think we should come up with a compromise that includes both. As for all your evidence, I do regard it as evidence for the questions you raised. I do not regard it as being remotely the sort of thing that should be discussed ad nauseam on this Talk page.

Miskin: What they call themselves is irrelevant. I know that the US recognised them with their constitutional name (ROM) last November, but what you don't seem to know is that it's the same US who is negotiating and has already proposed a new name (Republika Makedonija-Skopje) as we speak. But at the end of the day, what the US has done or not done, is also irrelevant. How hard is to see that what's recognised by the UN is the closest thing to NPOV?

Lectiodifficilior: What people call themselves is irrelevant? I call that odd, but from now on I shall call you "the idiot" and deny your right to call yourself anything else.
Surely you understand that 95% of the world's nations doing give a fig whether they're called Macedonia, FYROM or the People's Republic of Skopjestan. They were blocked from entering as Macedonia because of the objections of Greece. According to the Wikipedia entry Republic_of_macedonia (Memo to Idiot: Change that name before someone notices), Russia and China also use the name "Macedonia." So, we have Wikipedia, the US, Russia and China on one side, the UN (provisionally) and other nations on the other. Again, this is the very definition of a "dispute." We should use both terms.

Miskin: Ironically enough, that's what I indirectly call myself. Prince Miskin is the hero of Fyodor Dostojevski's novel "The idiot". But don't try to play like this, I can give you better examples. What if would happen if 'Albania' called itself 'Sparta' and claimed history and heritage of ancient Spartans. Would we just start calling them that? The thing is that names and symbols are very important for the stability of a region. Do you think it would be perfectly normal for Egypt or Syria to decide to put the swastika on their flags? According to your logic, "why not? Isn't that what they want?". It's obviously not as simple as it seems. It's the US (who is also looking for a different name as we speak) then Russia, China and many other countries on one side, but the UN doesn't go on the other side, it just defines how it should be called. We can use both terms for ROM and FYROM if you really don't understand what the UN stands for, but the ethnic term must change to Macedonian Slavs.

Lectiodifficilior: 4. Wikipedia has not "decided" to use "Macedonian Slav" whenever the ROM/FYROM is mentioned, nor has "academia" united behind that term. I don't care what decision was reached on that page. I will push this until arbitration. So why don't we compromise on some wording. This page is not about modern politics.

Miskin: To refer to them simply as Macedonians is much worse than referring to FYROM as ROM. Do I really have to bring up the evident scenario of unsuspected readers assuming that Macedonian Slavs and ROM have actually a remote connection to real (ancient) Macedonia? Wikipedia has decided to use the term Macedonian Slav in order to make that distinction. By linking Macedonians you're providing false information, since the people who inhabit the historical region of Macedonia are of various ethnic origins (including Bulgarian, Albanian and Greek). The way it's written right now, it implies that even Greek Macedonians are against Greeks. In other words the term Macedonian cannot be monopolised by one ethnicity like it is done in the article (and like FYROM wants). And for one more I'll point out that this is contradictory to wikipedia articles such as Macedonians and Macedonian Slavs, which both provide an analytical and NPOV side of the story. I know that the page is not about modern politics, and this is why I tried to remove every reference to "Alexander's ethnicity" and everything that's connected to it. I remind you that you were the one who objected, and I think the only reason you're still objecting is because you're being stubborn.

Miskin: Wikipedia supports neutrality and truth. This is what FYROM and Macedonian Slav is about (read the article Einstein). If you can't get those simple concepts into your head, then allow me to laugh out loud by the irony of person like you involved in an "encyclopedia".

Lectiodifficilior: Wikipedia does support a netural point of view and truth (much of the difficulty comes in determining what those are, and when they should trump each other). But I don't understand why one Wikipedia article at one point in time gets to dictate terms to others. This is not how Wikipedia resolves arguments, however much you might want it to be.

Miskin: Because otherwise the encyclopedia would be full of POV inforamtion and contradictions, and would generally look extremely stupid. But even if we forget what other articles write, I've already explained you the deal with the terms Macedonia and Macedonians and how they can't be monopolised by a single ethnic group (especially one that has no remote connection to the term). Other Greeks would claim that Macedonia is a word 100% copyrighted by Greeks, but what I'm telling you is something completely different, NPOV and logical. On a last account, the quotes of the newspaper were the proof that FYROM and Macedonian Slavs do NOT officially claim any heritage to Alexander the Great as it is stated on the article. What those people say on the internet is obviously something irrelevant to NPOV, I hope we agree on this. Therefore the article provides wrong information by stating that they take offense when someone calls Alexander a Greek. It's also extremely ironic if you consider the fact that those people didn't know who Alexander III was prior to 1991 when they were told that he was also called Macedonian. Similarly as I stated earlier, the region of Macedonia that was partinioned in 1913, does not correspond to the region of FYROM/ROM of today, and most importantly it does not correspond to the region of ancient Macedon. Is is therefore irrelevant to the article, and by including it you're being NPOV and you're providing false information.

Lectiodifficilior: Wait, if you can use Macedonian Slav to support your view, how is that I cannot use Republic of Macedonia. How topsy-turvey; aren't you feeling nauseous at at these mental backflips?
Many "Macedonian Slavs" do claim kinship with the ancient Macedonians. According to you, "those people didn't know who Alexander III was prior to 1991 when they were told that he was also called Macedonian." All I can say to this is, "you're a biggot." Since they're so ignorant, I bet those Macedonians don't bathe much either, right?

Miskin: I don't take seriously what you're saying because you're obviously not familiar with the dispute. Macedonian Slavs have been brainwashed in the last several decades to hate Greeks like Arabs have been brainwashed to hate Americans. Prior to WW2 there used to be ethnic minorities of Macedonian Slavs in Greek Macedonia, who did refer to themselves as 'Macedonian Orthodox Slavs', but none of them ever meant any connection to Alexander's Macedonia. Those were poor farmers with no education, whose ancestors had found themselves in Greek Macedonia since the Slavic invasions of the Byzantine Empire. The notion of a Macedonian nation was created and promoted by Tito in 1948 (if I remember correctly) in order to lay land claims on Greek Macedonia (Nothern Greece). That's when the southern region of Yugoslavia (today FYROM) was baptised 'Macedonia'. Prior to that period it was called "Vardarska-Banovina". At the time the US (as an ally of Greece) had denied the existence of a Macedonian nation and ordered all land claims to be withdrawn from the international scene. Of course the local propaganda by communist dicators continued, the Slavic Macedonian language was reconstructed, the region of FYROM was named 'Macedonia', they spoke of a 'Macedonian nation' etc, etc. All this of course is irrelevant to why we should put Macedonian Slavs instead of simply Macedonians, which is a regional term that includes many different ethnic groups and can't be monopolised.

Lectiodifficilior': 5. Don't sigh about Arrian. Arrian was a Greek and wrote in Greek. But he was also a Roman citizen—indeed he led a Roman army!—and also wrote in Latin (his official report on the Black Sea was in Latin, the literary account in Greek). Personally I prefer to call him a Greek historian, but your superiority on the subject is annoying. I get the sense that non-racial citizenship irks you. I propose we compromise. Arrian was from Bithynia and whatever his culture and language he was probably of Anatolian stock. Since there are no modern Bithynians, let's call him a Turk!

Miskin: *Re-Sigh*... That's the stupidest thing that I've heard in weeks. Just because Greece was a Roman Province at the time, your excellency assumes that all Roman "citizens" should be regarded as "Romans"? Well, if I knew that I was debating with an ingnorant and yet intelligent person, I would just make him understand why he's wrong, but in your case I'll just direct you to the millions of wikipedia ethnic references that are just against your childish logic. On the other hand, I would also advise you to gain some fundemental knowledge on terms such as ethnic, which derives from the word ethnos, which is different from the modern, French-promoted concept of a nation and the political invention of race. Anyways I think this is too complicated for you.

NB: "Alexandrou Anabasis" (which I read in ancient Greek when I was 15) was written in Greek. Of course that's irrelevant, since even Roman Emperors (such as Julius Caesar) would often prefer to write in Greek, I'm just using a Socratic method to make you realise how ignorant you are.

Lectiodifficilior: As stated, I think it's better to call him a Greek historian because he wrote his histories in Greek and his culture was essentially Greek. I also think this is a good way to handle "Greek" and "Roman" generally, but you will find the other convention used in academic works, and Arrian has more claim on Romanitas than other Roman-period Greek authors.

I also read the Anabasis in Greek. Unfortunately, I didn't do it when I was fifteen, but in a seminar devoted to the book while I was in graduate school (classical philology). I admit that puts me at a loss, particularly as your experience was apparently so recent.

Miskin: At the end of the day I don't really care about Arrian, I just corrected his origin because it stroke as something stupid. But you can call him Mongolian if that will give you some satisfaction.

Lectiodifficilior: No, I'd rather you understood that, although I disagree, the designation "Roman" isn't crazy-dumb. How's your Latin by the way?

Intermediate to bad. I thought you preferred to call him a Greek, how come you disagree now? But really, I don't care.

Lectiodifficilior: 6. Your reading of Plutarch's life of Aratus and the word allophylos is quite wrong—do you read Greek as well as talk about it?—, but I agree in getting rid of the paragraph. It smacked of point-scoring.

Miskin: Then I suppose this could also be used against Spartans, because Pericles calls them also 'ΑΛΛΟΦΥΛΟΥΣ' in the Peloponnesian War (referring to the Ionian-Dorian conflict). So that information is either false (interpreted by amateurs or propagandists) or it means that Spartans were not Greeks either.

Lectiodifficilior: Get out a copy of Liddell and Scott, p. 71. It has a range of meanings, like many words. There are quite as many instances of it meaning "foreign" in a more distinctly "barbarian" sense.

Miskin: "Fylo" in both ancient and modern Greek means "tribe", and that's how it's used in ancient sources (I already brought up the example of Pericles who refers to the Spartans as 'alofylous'). If you insist I will search for the original quotation by Thucydides and more instances by different authors. Even if we assume that it had several meanings depending on the historical period, what made you think that Plutarch used it in the context of "barbarians", especially when he has in several occasions implied that Macedonians were Greeks? And I don't know why we keep discussing this since you agreed to take it off.

Lectiodifficilior: Etymology is not meaning, it is etymology. I'm not sure what there is to argue about. Are you in fact saying it always means other-tribed and never "foreign." I guess you don't have a copy of a decent academic Greek dictionary.

Miskin: My dictionary of Modern Greek Koine (which is actually one of the best) provides alternative meanings that cover both sides of the story. I'm not denying that it can have various meanings depending on the context that it's used (same as the word "race"). What I'm saying is that by the specific author and by all authors that I have come across so far (including Herodotus), 'alophylos' refers to a tribal distinction between Greeks and 'fylo' refers to 'tribe'. I don't know why you insist since I've brought up so many specific examples already.

have fun with Miskin, Lectiodifficilior, he just finished point-scoring on Ancient Macedonian language, and we won't be too sad if you keep him busy here for a while. Why is it the "FYROM" naming dispute appears incredibly boring and without consequence to anybody but (FYRo)Macedonians and Greeks? They agreed to forgo claims on Greek territory, it's a dead horse, and a childish dispute about the number of rays painted on a flag. Of course without the remotest relevance to Alexander the Great or Ancient Macedonia :) dab (ᛏ) 17:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re "alophylon is the right spelling", [3] [4]. from alyo-bhu-los, of course. dab (ᛏ) 18:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking me dab you pervert, can't you see I don't swing that way? The more you speak the more you prove that you're ignorant on the topics you're trying to debate. |Miskin

Lectiodifficilior: So, if you're wrong, Dab's a pervert? Excellent.

Miskin: No I wasn't wrong, I just couldn't be bothered to correct him because that's something I've doing very frequently lately. The Perseus project has standardised its own coding of displaying Greek with Latin characters (such as using U for an Ypsilon). But of course that specific coding doesn't obey to any international standards (and Perseus doesn't claim so); it's only a rule that's meant to be used within the project, therefore it's pointless to bring it up here in the first place. I'm using a custom phonetic dictionary-type of spelling in order to make the word readable in all users of the Latin alphabet.

Lectiodifficilior: I'm sorry, but you said it was spelled alophylon (alpha-lambda-omicron-phi-upsilon-lambda-omicron-nu), but it is not. It is spelled with allo' (Greek word and stem you ought to recognize), and it is a two-termination adjective, generally represented as -os' or -os -on not as -on. By "alyo-bhu-los" I suspect he was giving its IE origin, although frankly I don't know--I never much IE work.
Incidentally, Wikipedians are not generally homophobes. I'm not sure what edge you think you gain by accusing dab of "swinging both ways" and desiring you.

Miskin: Read closely what I said. I was using phonetic spelling in the style of a dictionary. I never said that it's spelled alpha-lambda-omicron etc, I spelled it (and continue to spell it) a-l-o-p-h-y-l-o-s (or alofylos), and when I spell it in Greek I use two lambda. Since there's no standard Greek-to-Latin spelling, I was using a phonetic one in order to make it readable by any user of the Latin alphabet ('allophylos' for example would be pronuounced wrongly by a Spaniard).

And what you people don't understand is that Modern Greek is the same language as ancient Greek, except its evolved version. It's not just a language that was given the name 'Greek' because it sounded cool. The vast majority of modern Greek vocabulary corresponds to or derives from the ancient. In this case the word 'alophylo' (αλλόφυλο) is used exactly as it is and it has the same meaning. And if you break down to 'alos' (άλλος) and 'fylo' (φύλο), you'll get the words for "other" and "tribe". And those are not just some archaic words whose meaning is only known by educated people, they are actual everyday words. I'm bringing this up because I remember reading something in this discussion about the definition of the name "Alexander" (and whether it should be added or not) where you said "Well I'm not adding the Greek definition either - as if any Greeks of today would understand what it means". Well for your information 'Alexandros' breaks down to the verb 'alexo' and 'andras', that stand for "repel" and 'man'. The word alexo is not used anymore in its verbal context, but it is very frequent as a component of synthetic words (phonetic: alexikerauno, alexisphero, aleximptoto etc), and that's the way it's used in 'Alexandros'. While the verb "alexo" has the dual meaning of "defend" and "repel", its synthetic form has always the meaning of 'repel', and that's the definition it has in the word 'Alexandros'. Therefore a Greek (with no prior knowledge of the ancient language), not only understands what 'Alexandros' means, but he also understands the correct meaning of the word, which is actually "repeller of men" (as opposed the more romantic and imprecise "defender of men" that is commonly translated in english). Miskin

Lectiodifficilior: Ancient Greek and modern Greek are two stops on a long historical chain. Modern Greek is different in some ways, and not in others. Notably the phonetics have changed quite significantly, but—as in English—the orthography has been kept static. Like Arabic and some other languages, Greek has divided into formal and informal forms, such that a university lecture or a right-wing paper are more "classical" than your average street conversation. Also, the Greek language's natural development has been interupted by conscious efforts to "purify" it of "foreign" elements, such that Greek today is in some ways more like Ancient Greek than Greek of the 19th century. Lastly, modern Greeks do not "naturally" understand Ancient Greek any more than Americans understand Chaucer. Yes, they have a tremendous advantage and can, like an English speaker, learn the differences and increase their understanding quite easily. But your average modern Greek today would be quite flummoxed if you read them out loud a passage of Pindar in the original. By the way, I'm guessing you read the Kaktos edition of Arrian. Those editions are available all over Greece. I'm not getting, however, why the main Greek editions of ancient Greek works should have Ancient Greek on the left and Modern on the right, if they are the same language. Perhaps it's so those ignorant Macedonians can understand?
I'm not catching what you're talking about as regards a previous post of mine. I have a feeling you're misquoting or misrepresenting me, but I don't really care.

Miskin: Modern Greek is closer to Mycenaean Greek than what modern English is to Anglo-Saxonic, there's no comparison in the evolution of those two languages. The Greek diglossy is not something new that concerns modern Greek, it goes back to Hellenistic times of Atticists versus Koine, then in the early Byzantine Empire with Latin versus Greek and later Ancient/Hellenistic versus Medieval/Modern Greek, and it continues in the Greek Kingdom with purified versus vernacular Greek. The 'purification' that you're mentioning, didn't have to do with the vernacular language (that was never stopped spoken in Greece), it had to do with the purified (kathareuousa) that was adopted as the official language by the state. The latter was not an artificial language as many people think, but rather a purified version of the language used by the Greek Orthodox Church. By the way this diglossy was given up some decades ago; there's no state official language anymore, only the naturally evolved vernacular (your information is stuck in the 70's). Whether Modern Greek of today is purer than the Modern Greek of the 19th century is something debatable. The natural evolution of the Greek language was partially interrupted in mainland Greece during the Ottoman occupation. New things are invented everyday, and for every language there's a group of scholars who construct words to describe those new objects. During the Ottoman period that educational standards had reached a minimum, new words could not be constructed and thus loan words entered the language. After the creation of the Greek Kingdom in 1829, the language started re-evolving and Greek words were replacing the loan words. So concerning vocabulary, Modern Greek of today is definitely purer than the 19th's century's, but 19th phonology of various Greek dialects was much closer to ancient Greek than it is today. Of course strictly speaking, 'Modern Greek' refers to a family of dialects that singificantly different from each other and go back to the middle ages. It's not about the language of Greece, which is officially called "Modern Greek Koine" (common Modern Greek). Now whether Modern Greek is intelligible with Ancient Greek, it depends strictly on the modern or ancient Dialect we're dealing with. For example Modern Greek Koine and all its idioms, hail directly from Hellenistic Koine, and and speaker of Modern Greek without prior knowledge of ancient can understand the Bible almost perfectly. Hellenistic Koine in turn is based on Attic (although it has features of many other ancient dialects). A Modern Greek Koine speaker who tries to read Attic will pick up most of its words but will miss much of its meaning due to grammatical changes (it also depends on the author's difficulty). A natural Attic speaker on the other hand, will understand some 80% of a Modern Greek Koine text. The example that you brought up with Pindar is a special case, because Pindar wrote in Doric and is therefore independent from the 'Hellenistic Koine' dialect branch. Modern Greek dialects that evolved from the Doric branch instead of Hellenistic Koine, will understand much more than the others. I don't understand what you meant by your example on the translation from attic to modern Greek. The fact that they're the same language, doesn't mean that they're perfectly intelligible with each other, obviously people need translations since we're talking about a 2500 year evolution gap. By "same language", it is meant an evolved stage of the same language, not same as in American and British English (stating the obvious for you again). A contemporary of Arrian would probably also need a translation to perfectly understand Homer, so would a Spartan of the Classic Age. Arrian by the way is not writing in his mother tongue which is Hellinistic Koine (intelligible with modern Greek), he's writing in 5th century Attic (or he's trying to anyway). Thucydides' pure Attic is much easier to understand compared to Arrian's archaism attempts (still requires a translation of course). In other words Arrian use of Attic is the example of Greek diglossy of the ancient times that I was describing earlier. For more information see my article on Modern Greek. Miskin

Removing titles VOTE

While the nasty and pointless ethnic battles continue, can we get some more opinions on keeping or removing the "titles" section? Again, I favor it (see above), but not dogmatically. Anyone else on either side?

How about an unofficial vote?

Remove it

Lectiodifficilior — (see above)
Eb.hoop 17 May 2005, 21:45 (UTC)

Keep it

(insert here)

Recent spam

How do we get an IP banned for a few days? 24.115.30.42 has gone hog-wild on this thing. Good work, User:Everyking, User:DJ Clayworth, User:Antandrus! Lectiodifficilior

Other languages

I haven't looked at other languages' Alexander pages in a year or so. The French page is excellent, really the model for what we should have here. The Italian and German pages—which are harder reading for me, so I haven't looked them over enough—seem good too. All three share a much more ordered presentation drawn up around a narrative. By contast, the English-language page is a total hodge-podge. The narrative isn't very good, the synchronic sections interupt the flow, some sections (eg., "Titles") are basically useless, and then there are the special-interest sections—sexuality and nationality—that such up most of time and effort.

Does anyone else see cause for a radical restructuring? Lectiodifficilior

New comments at bottom, please.

Changes to ethnicity section

The section went from:

Original: The controversy remains potent in modern times, because the area corresponding to Ancient Macedon is now divided between the modern state of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Both Greek and Macedonian nationalists have claimed Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation.
Edit by User:Miskin: The controversy remains potent in modern times, both Greeks and Macedonian Slavs claim Alexander as their own national hero, and take great offense when he is described as belonging to the other nation.
User:Miskin explained this "Are we agreed that this is NPOV or not? I took out the "area of ancient Macedon is divided..." because as I explained to you it's not true."
Edit by Lectiodifficilior: The controversy remains potent today. Nationalists in both Greece and the Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia "claim" Alexander and the Macedonians and disparage the others' claim. Coins, flags, slogans and school textbooks have all been real-world flashpoints. With its lack of editorial control and social inhibition (see Computer-mediated communication), the internet generally and Wikipedia in specific are a particularly contentious arena.

Some thoughts:

I do not concede that Macedonia—Macedonia of the time of Alexander—was entirely within the boundaries of modern Greece. Certainly the most ancient core of the country was—nor did it touch the sea—but the late 4c. state spilled over the distant future's border. Any number of maps by classical scholars "without a dog in the fight" could be adduced on this point; to deny it smacks of political posturing.
I decided to change the sentence to avoid naming ethnicities. I don't concede that Greeks are "Greeks" but modern residents of Macedonia must bear the name "Macedonian Slavs." (Incidentally, does this apply to the ethnic and linguistic Slavs within Greek borders that Greece has so long denied existing and attempted to Hellenize?)
I added the bit about the internet because I think we owe it to note that the most interesting thing about this section is the constant changes it undergoes and the vitriol these changes inspire. Pardon me if this seems a big "meta."

The 'meta' reference to Wikipedia itself should probably be removed - see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The Singing Badger 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about that policy. Apologies then. How about a section-wide dispute template? How would that sit? Lectiodifficilior 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could simply say that web-based media in general is a forum for these disputes. That should do the job of alerting the casual reader. Given the very clear and unbiased paragraph that is gradually being put together here, I think any future suspect changes to it should be spotted fairly rapidly by users and corrected (he said, idealistically). The Singing Badger 19:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather say "internet," because I've seen this name calling a lot on chatrooms, not to mention all the hate mail I get about my website on Alexander—from both sides, a real badge of honor.
Incidentally, I hope the policy eventually falls, or a dedicated meta-wikipedia is built. Wikipedia itself is an interesting object of study. Lectiodifficilior 21:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure PhDs are already being written! The Singing Badger 22:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More debate about ethnicity

Lectiodifficilior quoted: I do not concede that Macedonia—Macedonia of the time of Alexander—was entirely within the boundaries of modern Greece. Certainly the most ancient core of the country was—nor did it touch the sea—but the late 4c. state spilled over the distant future's border. Any number of maps by classical scholars "without a dog in the fight" could be adduced on this point; to deny it smacks of political posturing.

Miskin: Prior to Philip II, it was restricted within what is now Macedonia in Northern Greece. With the conquests of Philip, it assimilated the Ionian colonies on the coast of Chalcidice and a small part of what is now southern FYROM (Bitola/Monastiri was the birthplace of Philip's mother). Even if we take Philip's conquests as a reference point, it would be still incorrect to say that "Ancient Macedon was divided between Northern Greece and FYROM", because in 1913 the partitioned "Macedonia" did not correspond to ancient Macedon (as it's explained in articles Macedon and Macedonia). After the Roman occupation of Greece the geographical region of Macedonia lost forever its accurate correspondence to ancient Macedon (as a Roman province it included Thessaly, parts of Epirus, Illyria and Thrace). Having this in mind, the geographical location of modern FYROM would correspond to the ancient Kingdom of Paeonia.

Lectiodifficilior quoted: I decided to change the sentence to avoid naming ethnicities. I don't concede that Greeks are "Greeks" but modern residents of Macedonia must bear the name "Macedonian Slavs." (Incidentally, does this apply to the ethnic and linguistic Slavs within Greek borders that Greece has so long denied existing and attempted to Hellenize?)

Miskin: I'm glad to see that at least one person is concerned about NPOV. Lectiodifficilior knows that I'm right, he just doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't like me, which is pretty much the definition of a POV attitude.

Lectiodifficilior: I deny that I "know you're right." I do not. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am earnestly wrong. It is the mark of bad argument that you are perpetually asserting things exterior to the argument, eg., that Dab is a pervert who wants you and that I "know you're right." I don't know anything about you. I supect your opinions, although wrong, are entirely believed.

As a last notice, the "Macedonian Slav" minority found within the borders of Northern Greece, it's probably smaller than the Greek minority found in FYROM (which is also not recognised). The former is not recognised by the Greek government as a "Macedonian minority in Greece" for the obvious reason: Admitting that a Macedonian nation has always existed and that Northern Greece (Macedonia) is an occupated territory. That would be similar to America recognising a "Californian ethnic group" in the state of California (and at the same time Mexico wanting to rename itself to "Republic of California"). The Macedonian Slav minority in Greece has a political party which in last elections received some 1000 votes (part of which was unanimously provided by Greek extreme left-wings). In Southern FYROM - despite what they say - the Greek minority is never mentioned, under a constant assimilation process, and has no rights whatsoever. If you don't believe this coming from my mouth then you could look up some demographics of the Ottoman Empire regarding the city of Monastiri (now Bitola) and the surrounding villages. Of course in those demographies you'll only come across the ethnic group Bulgarian, and never Macedonian Slav or Macedonian, but this of course is an entire different story. Anyway I think the minority issues should be left out of both the article and its discussion page. In my opinion the Macedonian Slav claims on Alexander the Great and ancient Macedon should be completely removed, because despite all the unofficial propaganda that exists on the internet, the state of FYROM doesn't have such official claims (my mocked quotations of FYROM politicians verify this). If those unofficial (nationalist) historical claims remain in that page, then the unofficial land claims of FYROM on Greece should be added as well (because those two things go together). Miskin

As a response to Lectiodifficilior concerning Demosthenes' contradiction, I didn't include the full quotation because it was too long: Yet your hegemony in Greece lasted seventy-five years, that of Sparta twenty-nine, and in these later times Thebes too gained some sort of authority after the battle of Leuctra. But neither to you nor to the Thebans nor to the Lacedaemonians did the Greeks ever yet, men of Athens, concede the right of unrestricted action, or anything like it... Yet all the faults committed by the Lacedaemonians in those thirty years, and by our ancestors in their seventy years of supremacy, are fewer, men of Athens, than the wrongs which Philip has done to the Greeks in the thirteen incomplete years in which he has been coming to the top--or rather, they are not a fraction of them.(3rd Philippic, 9.23). Demosthenes in that case he admits that Philip's rule over Greece was a Macedonian hegemony that followed the Athenian, Spartan and Theban, which means that he didn't consider it a foreign occupation. After all, foreign invasions such as the ones of Darius and Xerxes never needed a series of speech to convince the Athenians that they were barbarian and therefore not good for the city and the Greek "nation". If you don't see my point then look up the term hegemony and its meaning in Classical Greek politics. Of course in reality it's not a contradiction (as an orator's skill doesn't permit it), but the terms 'barbarian' and 'not Greek' are used as an insult. If you're not able to realise this by yourself, I'm not going to try to convince you, so with your permission I'll just add this quote and label it as a "contradiction". The isolated quote that is right now on the article serves only as a biased POV interpretation of an ancient political conflict in order to have a propagandistic impact on a modern one (you're basically quoting site's of propagandists). With your persmission I'm adding back the full quoation. Miskin

Lectiodifficilior: Honestly, Miskin, what in God's name do you think the longer quote proves? That Demosthenes saying that the Macedonians are Greek? Demosthenes may well have said it. Every other sentence he ever wrote may be that in so many words. He may have been born and died saying speaking nothing but this sentiment. But not THIS passage! This no more says that Philip or the Macedonians are Greeks than that it declares Philip a pineapple. Let's examine your longer quote. Is there anything wrong with this summary?

1. The hegemony of Athens, Sparta and Thebes lasted different durations. 2. During those hegemonies the Greeks did not give up their freedom. 3. The crimes of Sparta and Athens are less than Philip's against the Greeks.

Certainly he is comparing the dominance of Athens, Sparta and Thebes to Philip. Is their anything in the act of comparing that makes Philip Greek? There are many instances of Greek literature in which Athens, Thebes, Sparta, Persia and Rome are compared with each other. This doesn't make the them all Greeks.

Through the fog, I guess you're placing stress on the term "hegemony." You suggest I look it up. That Demosthenes doesn't use the term is one strike against it; it was introduced into the English and is not in the Greek. That Demosthenes uses the term no where else in the speech is another. That Demosthenes uses none of its cognates either is a third strike—except three places he uses hegeomai in its other sense, "to think" (9.1, 9.47 and 9.67), much like Latin uses ducere. That is, he uses hegemoneia and hegemon as often as he uses the word pineapple—never. The batter is already out, but I must also mention that hegemoneia doesn't mean "the rule of a group by a segment of that group." It and its relatives mean leadership or rule in all kinds of ways, being used of Roman governors over Syrians, Persians over Greeks, Athenians over the sea (innanimate objects have no ethnicity, although I expect you dispute that), etc. Good grief, do you own an academic dictionary? Since I linked to the Perseus, how about doing the word searches I do? You might someday prove a point that way. But at least you won't talk about the importance of a word in the Greek text THAT ISN'T EVEN THERE!

On the second issue, the paragraph as now stands contrasts Isocrates with Demosthenes. Isocrates gets more description, but Demosthenes gets a quote. If you can find a quote where Isocrates says that the Macedonians are Greeks, great! That would prove the point of the paragraph—that 4c. writers had different opinions, and would be a welcome addition to the paragraph.

Meanwhile, I'm reverting your edit, and adding my pineapple theory. At least it has no ethnic "point." Lectiodifficilior 21:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it all comes down to your ignorance of the term hegemony in ancient Greek politics. I'm going to answer to every single of your questions one-by-one.

Certainly he is comparing the dominance of Athens, Sparta and Thebes to Philip. Is their anything in the act of comparing that makes Philip Greek?

No he's not comparing the dominance of Athens, Sparta and Thebes to Philip, he compares the hegemonies of Athens, Sparta and Thebes over Greece, to the hegemony of Macedon over Greece. If he viewed Macedonians as foreigners, he wouldn't comparing their military superiority in Greece with that of past Greek states, basically he wouldn't even have been bothered to write a speech in the first place. Throughout Greek history many states allied themselves with barbarian nations (Persians, Romans, Illyrians etc), but when the freedom of Greece was at stake, nobody ever had to convince the citizens of a state that their freedom is in danger. And in case you didn't know, nobody ever wrote a speech before the Persian Wars. This is the difference between hegemony and foreign occupation in Classics.

There are many instances of Greek literature in which Athens, Thebes, Sparta, Persia and Rome are compared with each other. This doesn't make the them all Greeks.

You still don't get it do you? The 4 hegemonies of ancient Greece (Athenian, Spartan, Theban, Macedonian) is not something that I invented or interpreted through this quote, it's actually that's taught in every Classics or history department throughout the world. What I'm pointing out here is that Demosthenes admits it. The Greek word 'hegemony' literally means "leadership", but it Classics it has a special meaning, which is the military superiority of a Greek state over the others. There was never a reference by scholars to the "Roman hegemony in Greece" or "Persian hegemony" in Ionia. So the answer is NO. The fact that it's used by Demosthenes for Macedonians, it means that he views them as Greeks.

Even if that were so, he doesn't use it of Macedonians, he uses it of Spartans, Thebans and Athenians, then not of Macedonians. (Um, read Greek again.) He does COMPARE these prostatai to Philip, but comparisons do not work like you think they do. For example, if I were to compare you to a donkey, a money and an ass, I would not be denying you are a homo sapiens. See? Logic is fun! Lectiodifficilior 22:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The batter is already out, but I must also mention that hegemoneia doesn't mean "the rule of a group by a segment of that group." It and its relatives mean leadership or rule in all kinds of ways, being used of Roman governors over Syrians, Persians over Greeks, Athenians over the sea (innanimate objects have no ethnicity, although I expect you dispute that), etc.

In Classics and ancient Greek politics, it does mean that. When I advised you to look it up, I was obviously right. It's even in the damned wikipedia in the article Hegemony which I so many times linked: "The word "hegemon" originated in ancient Greece, and derives from the word hegeisthai (meaning "to lead"). An early example of hegemony during ancient Greek history occurred when Sparta became the hegemon of the Peloponnesian League in the 6th century BC. Later, in 337 BC, Philip II of Macedon became the personal Hegemon of the League of Corinth, a position he passed on to his son Alexander the Great ... In more recent times, analysts have used the term hegemony in a more abstract sense to describe the "proletarian dictatorships" of the 20th century, resulting in regional domination by local powers, or domination of the world by a global power. China's position of dominance in East Asia for most of its history offers an example of the regional hegemony."

Good grief, do you own an academic dictionary? Since I linked to the Perseus, how about doing the word searches I do? You might someday prove a point that way.

The word used by Demosthenes was prostatai (leaders), and ironically enough, it was the translation of the Perseus project that I was quoting. Here's the link to read it as many times as you like: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0070&layout=&loc=9.23

Of course it was! I found the quote and added it. I always link to Perseus because there alone can you get the Greek text, access to the LSJ, etc. Lectiodifficilior 22:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's Perseus that chose the term hegemony to interpret Macedon's leadership, which as I explained, Classicists use it for in a very specific context. If you have a problem with this translation and you think that this word shouldn't be there, then solve your issues with Perseus and all scholars worldwide. In the meantime I'm reverting from your biased and single-sided interpretation.

But at least you won't talk about the importance of a word in the Greek text THAT ISN'T EVEN THERE!

I'll let you into a secret. Actually none of those words are really there, because the original text was written on a different language and alphabet. But this is the point of a translation, to substitute words from one language with another and preserve the text's meaning. Miskin

You spell a Greek word wrong and steadfastly refuse to admit to it—pretending two lambdas sound the same as one. You place enormous stress on a word that isn't in the Greek, and which doesn't mean what you think it does, by leaning on the translation and a Wikipedia article in place of the LSJ! (Do you think I made up the dictionary entries? No, I have a copy of the LSJ, and you can read it online free, also at Perseus.) We have a very NPOV paragraph, stating that opinions differed, and giving two sides to the argument. The Demosthenes quote is nicely contextualized by noting it serves his purpose and is in a generally splenetic context. But you can't abide the notion that Demosthenes would under any situation ever questioned the Greekness of the Macedonians, and must insist contrary to logic and the simple Greek text that he did not.

You have:

1. Repeatedly tried to hijack one section to your own political ends.
2. Never proposed or accepted compromise wording, as I have repeatedly.
3. Never contributed usefully to other sections of this article; if you know anything about Alexander the individual as opposed to Alexander the ethnic example, you have never shown it.
4. Repeatedly made verifiably false arguments; often the falsity of an argument isn't even important—even if you misspelled a Greek work, you could still be right!—but no matter how clearly you are wrong, you never admit it.
5. Insulted me and others repeatedly, often without any reference to our arguments.
6. Done much the same on other entries.

There is simply no point in you and I discussing the matter further. I am sick and tired of it. Lectiodifficilior 22:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even bother to answer this. Anyone who has read this argument from top to bottom should be able to decide on his own on who has actually a point to make and who is talking out of his behind because he can't admit his mistakes. Who has been insulting whom, is a different story. As for my supposedly spelling mistake of 'alofylo', if you still believe that this phonetic spelling was my invention in order to avoid admitting an error, then pick up a Spanish dictionary to see how they spell the word "Hellenic". And if you're still not convinced then I frankly couldn't care less; I just find it comically pathetic that after all that's been said, questioning a spelling mistake was the only thing you cared to emphasise. Miskin

Dynastic Chart

Having removed the "titles," and consolidated the links, I nominate the "Dynastic Chart" for removal. I think it adds nothing but bulk. Anyone disagree?

I'll remove it in two days if there's no discussion. If removal brings discussion, that's fine. We can put it back until we agree. Lectiodifficilior

Dispute resolution

Anyone been through the Wikipedia dispute process? I never have. How do we go about getting it started? I think we should get a compromise paragraph and then lock the Ethnicity section for a year. Lectiodifficilior 18:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information is here: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The Singing Badger 22:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, how you you think this should be resolved? Shall we do a survey? Can we agree to lock the section down or remove it pending the outcome of the survey? Lectiodifficilior 22:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me for trying to hijack the section, when all I did in the first place was what you're proposing now, i.e. to remove it. I only changed its content after you declared that you considered necessary to keep it there (eventhough it's already over-analysed on different articles we have already linked). Those changes were aiming at a compromised version of a paragraph you insisted on keeping (something you're also proposing now). So I don't know why you're now asking me whether I suggest to remove it or change it, isn't that something I've been proposing from the very beginning? My personal opinion is still to remove it completely as it's irrelevant to the article, and as I doubt that a survey can hardly ever reflect reality. The French article which you regard as a prototype, has no references to modern politics whatsoever. Miskin

You are not correctly remembering how the section came about. I was originally against such a section, but came around to the evolving consensus. I have never argued strongly for it; I have only argued it should be both true and even-handed, something I maintain your edits are not. Certainly recent experience underlines the great difficulty of getting something we all agree is NPOV.
Past issues aside, can we agree that we both want to remove the section? It would be nice to agree on something with you. Perhaps we can agree on "see also" language. What articles do you put forward as the appropriate ones there?
If we can agree together to get rid of it, then let us put that to another vote. Lectiodifficilior 18:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we change the section to a compromised version, be aware that that I'll include all ancient sources on Alexander's origin that I can (since you have provided your own already). If you want to remove it completely then fine by me.

Miskin, can you understand the point of my paragraph? The point was to show that there is an ancient argument, giving one example on either side, not to present data about the "facts" of the case. Why are you so completely unable to understand the difference between the fact of an ancient debate and the data of a modern one? Lectiodifficilior 19:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new point of view on ethnicity

I think you are missing the point. Are modern englishmen normans? Maybe they are vikings? Those are irrelevant questions. The question whether Macedon was located in northen Greece or in FYROM is also irrelevant. It is clear to me that Alexander considered himself to be a greek. His education was greek, he read greek poetry and greek was his mother tongue. It is also quite obvious to me that several hundred years before his birth Macedon was not considered to be Greece (eg they were accepted to the plimpics much later then other greek states). I don't understand why this matter is so contraversial here. Gilgamesh he 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also countless ancient sources in which Macedonians are referred by themselves and by others as Greeks. That Alexander and Philip considered themselves to be Greek, is a fact that many people prefer not to take into consideration when they argue on their ethnicities. We have quotations such as Your ancestors invaded Macedon and the rest of Greece and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. and Now you fear punishment and beg for your lives, so I will let you free, if not for any other reason so that you can see the difference between a Greek king and a barbarian tyrant, so do not expect to suffer any harm from me. Known that those things came from Alexander's mouth and yet insist to argue on his ethnic origin because of modern politics, it's at least an insult to the historical person the article is about. Miskin

As I said to user:Lectiodifficilior, I suggest we delete this section. I just don't see the contraversy. Alexander as greek as any spartan or athenian. his ancestors were, of corse, of differnt culture, but it has nothing to do with him. Its like claimig that modern inhibitants of UK are in fact normans. I agree that pesantry probably saw itself as macedonians rathen then greek, but if we use Englands' example agian - the saxons didn't see the normans as british in the first generations after the conquest, but several hundred years from it, the norman invadors assimilated in the local population and became similar to it. This exactly the case with Macedon. I don't see any reason for that paragraph in the article. Gilgamesh he 18:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let's kill it. But, with all due respect, I think your opinion is a bit unnuanced. Like Miskin you seem to assume that "Greek" is an uncomplicated, unconstructed term, that you can just say someone is a Greek without clarifying what sort of definition you are using—eg., racial, linguistic, cultural, modern, ancient self-identification, ancient other-identification. I think a very strong case can be made on many of the possible criteria, but that is not the same thing as saying the issue is always and everywhere decided For modern scholarship, there remains real debate, particularly on the linguistics, with the consensus in classics and linguistics being opposite. There was also a real debate in antiquity on the subject, a debate that exists and is interesting completely irrespective of the "facts" at stake. Lastly, even if the "essential" Greekness of the Macedonians is granted—something I'm inclined to do—it is also clear that the Macedonians saw themselves as different from and superior to other Greeks. As much as Alexander and Philip called themselves Greeks, their self-identification was first and formost as "Macedonians," at least until Alexander started thinking "higher." Even if Demosthenes in his heart of hearts thought the Macedonians were Greek, he still hated them. I therefore object to edits that seek to remove the term "Macedonian" and substitute "Greek" everywhere, as if Alexander was a modern Greek leader as acceptable to a Spartan or an Athenian as their own. Nor should we erase the clear differences between Macedonian and Greek units in Alexander's army. These edits are not about how the Macedonians saw themselves, but about modern, nationalist conceptions of "Greek," or scoring points in modern politics. Lectiodifficilior 19:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. Of corse we don't have to substitute "macedonians with greeks. Of corse thet pesantry saw itslef as a differnt ethnic group. I am aware of the fact that no "Hellenic State" ever existed in the classical period. Of corse alexander considered himself as a macedonian, but a greek macedonian. I think you will agree that he was much closer to the contemprary greec culture then to the anient macedonian culture dating several hundred years before his birth. I think he was much more greek then a simple foot soldier in his army. Gilgamesh he 19:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asserting you did. I'm merely noting that is one of the many ways the issue intrudes on Wikipedia edits.
I find the peasantry-didn't-think-themself-as-Greek idea interesting, but speculative. I can't think of a single piece of evidence on what Macedonian peasants considered themselves. Lectiodifficilior 20:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use logic - the peasant is ignorant - he knows only the folk stories and local traditions. He didn't get any education, unlike the nobility. The education is very important in shaping the personality. I am almost sure that the peasantry saw the greeks as aliens. It has nothing to do with the royal family, which considered itself to be greek. Moreover, this dispute is harmaful. Any solution is better then the current situation. I suggest omitting this section from the article. We should try avoid political traps. FYROM and Greece will continue this dispute anyway. We can do nothing, but save this article and start adding the really important stuff.

Herodotus who didn't speak any language other than Greek, travelled to Macedonia in the 5th century BC and wrote in his Histories that Macedonians were akin to Dorians. There are countless similar ancient sources that classify Macedonians as a frowned upon kind of Greek peoples, and their language as a dialect of Greek. And now I'm talking about the people of Macedon, not its royal family (who is recorded by every historian as Greek). The only debate concerns linguistics and the nature of the native Macedonian tongue before it imported Attic. All we have is a disputed lexicon of the 5th century AD which contains a handfull of Macedonian words, the vast majority of which are Greek, and a minority related to Greek. People who try to support an "Ancient Macedonian language" related to Greek, (rather than a dialect of Greek) are either biased or naive pseudo-scholars who don't take historical and arcaeological evidence into account (they don't explain why Macedonians participated in Pan-Hellenic events nor why all the archaeological evidence, names and toponyms prior to Philip II were in Greek, etc). The vast majority of ancient sources verify that Macedonians were in fact Greeks (by language and religion), but they had a lower status in the Greek world because they hadn't adapted the polis and they had no political impact in Greece prior to Philip II. In this respect the term 'Greeks' usually refers to the city-states of central Greece and Peloponnese, hence the references on "Greeks and Macedonians", but that does not imply an ethnic distinction between the two (unless we want to force one). I'm not asking you to replace all Greeks with Macedonians, I'm only trying to make you see how the current state of the article is in a mess. For example the fact that a POV interpretation of Demosthenes exists in the article (although most ancient sources state the opposite) makes this article almost biased. How come there is no reference to Isocrates, who dreamt a Pan-Hellenic (all Greek) alliance against Persia under a Macedonian hegemony? As a last note, whether ancient Macedon and his Kings were Greeks or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the historical heritage of FYROM. That Macedonian-Slavs haven't got the slightest remote cultural or "racial" connection to ancient Macedon is just a fact acknowledged by everyone (even by the wikipedia article Macedonian Slavs. What people say and do on the internet is irrelevant, their politicians never dared to lay such ludicrous historical claims, so when you write that Macedonian Slavs claim heritage to ancient Macedonia, you're supporting an unofficial minority nationalist group and regard it as representative of a nation. The only thing from which Macedonian-Slavs would profit if ancient Macedonians were not Greeks, is that contemporary Greeks would noy be able to claim "copyrights" on the name 'Macedonia'. In my opinion ancient Macedonians were Greeks, but modern Greeks still shouldn't claim copyrights on the name. But when I see that in this article the author has reserved the modern term 'Macedonians' to describe 'Macedonian Slavs', I can't let this travesty go unnoticed. You should either rewrite an unbiased ethnicity section that would concern only ancient politics (with no reference to Greece and FYROM) or remove the section once and for all. Miskin

"How come there is no reference to Isocrates?" That's it, I'm not reading another word you write. What the hell are we doing if you can't do us the favor of reading the section you oppose so strongly. The whole point was to contract Isocrates—named and described—with Demosthenes! The current paragraph points out exactly what you want in there—you are free to add "Pan-Hellenic," I think it would be good. I also previously said that although the Isocrates section was longer than the Demosthenes, it lacked a quote and that I welcomed one.
Second, we weren't discussing the "facts" of the matter, but how Macedonian "peasants" thought of themselves. This isn't merely did they think of themselves as Greek, but did they define the world in those terms. That is a different question that you want to answer. Your question does have evidence—Herodotus is evidence, certainly and there are other data points. But, as stated, there is no real evidence about the mindset of the Macedonian peasant.
It is clear you do not respect the article enough to read it, complaining about something that's been in the article for weeks at the center of the paragraph in question and which I have repeatedly mentioned and asked for your expansion of. Why the hell should I or anyone else listen to a word you say?
Let's kill it. I look forward to you not listening to someone else for a change.

Lectiodifficilior 16:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not serious about this. What exactly is going on here, my viewpoint versus yours? Because all this time I thought we were looking for the truth. From what I have understood, you consider yourself in charge of this article because you have contributed a lot to it. That implies that you have gathered information for each (or for some) section(s) and you have added them in the article. Fine. If you had known all this time that there were other sources which contradicted Demosthenes then why didn't you add them yourself? Why did you expect for someone like me to come along and say "hey something's wrong there"! The most sad thing is that you basically admit it, you knew that Demosthenes' point of view (they way you interpreted it) was contradicted by the vast majority of ancient sources. I never told you to listen to me, this is why we're having this discussion, in order to find a mutually acceptable agreement. In most things that I've been pointing out and backing up with evidence, you have responded with petty sarcasm (e.g. why the area of ancient Macedon is not divided between FYROM and Greece and why we shouldn't refer to Macedonian Slavs as Macedonians who claim heritage to Alexander etc, etc). The point here is not about Isocrates being added to the article. If I had wanted to add in the ethnicity section all sources which contradicted Demosthenes then the section would become bigger than the rest of the article, and it would also look ridiculous as it would say "Alexander himself he considered himself and the Macedonian people to be Greek, as did Philip II, as did Alexander I, as did many Greek, Persian, Roman and Jewish scholars whose quotations are provided below ... However we have one quotation by Demosthenes which states the opposite, therefore we consider Alexander's ethnicity something debatable". Does that look like an sane article to you? The point is to cite the evidence here and decide whether we should depict Alexander and the Macedonians as Greeks or not. The article should only contain our conclusions, not my viewpoints versus yours. I feel strange to find myself in the position of stating the obvious. As for your reference on the Macedonian people, we don't know what the did or did not think, and for that the only thing we can assume is to take Alexander and the kings of Macedon as representatives. We have no proof that would assume the opposite, i.e. that Macedonians didn't consider themselves Greeks. On the contrary, we know that Alexander's successful military success had a lot to do with his the good relations he had with his armies. This fact alone refutes the assumption of Alexander a tyrant who thought himself as a Greek while their people didn't. Then we have the Hellenistic Age that is defined as the Hellenisation of Barbaric peoples who came under Macedonian rule. How was Greek culture spread if Macedonians were not Greek? Unless we fantasise that Alexander managed to brainwash and change the culture of his people within a generation (a guinness record), we have no reason to regard his ethnic feeling as an exception among his people. Miskin

new proposal

Hi all,
This dispute is getting us nowhere. Lets try to improve the article. I added a chapter about his army - lets continue in this direction instead of wasting time on disputes. I suggest the following - the article will be shortened and the isses discussed will have their proportional place in the article. Half of the article deals with some secondry crap and not with Alexander. If nobody opposes, I can do it. If somebody will think I cut to much, he will return the lost sections. I will not cut all the ethnicity paragraph and I will leave some lines about this issue. Is this proposal acceptable by everybody? Gilgamesh he 20:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not equipped to deal with this. I vote removal. But I'll come back, in this section or another, round and round for years. My time is better spent elsewhere. Lectiodifficilior

I don't under what vexes you Lectiodifficilior. I mean besides the fact that in your liberal mind there's should always be a balance between conflicts that can naively be interpreted as 'nationalistic', have you ever tried to consider that there might be a chance for one side to be right and the other to be wrong? In that case, a forced "balance" would not stand for justice now would it? It would be unfair for the side that is actually right. The problem with those type of articles, is that they are being run by people who don't really care to find out the truth behind the ethnic conflicts. It's much easier for them to label them as 'nationalistic', and conclude naively "nobody's right". So I'm asking you again. If the information provided is authentic, then why do you regard it as vandalism against which you feel obliged to take actions? Why does it vex you? I really, really, really don't understand... Miskin

"Greekness" isn't even a word. Whether or not Macedon was Greek is to be discussed on Macedon, it is just not the issue here. Everybody agrees Alexander was Macedonian. Those who think that Macedonians were Greeks will be happy, because that will imply he was also Greek. Those who think Macedonians weren't Greeks will also be happy, because for him there is no such implication. The whole dispute is simply offtopic here. Information does not only have to be "authentic", it also has to be pertinent. Otherwise I could start pasting random quotes into the text. The discussion of "Greekness" of Macedonians is not pertinent to this article, and should be addressed with a simple link to Macedon. This article most certainly isn't about any ethnic conflicts. Miskin, we are all very tired of your single topic "Macedonia is Greek". The pov is well represented at the relevant articles, so why don't you just be content with that, it's as much as anybody gets on WP. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann you're off topic again. Scroll up and read the discussion, Miskin was the one who initially tried to simply remove the section 'ethnicity of Alexander the Great' because he thought it was blatantly irrelevant (and examined in different articles), and Lectiodifficilior was the one who decided that the section had to stay. This fact automatically makes any information concerning Alexander's or Macedonians' ethnicity pertinent. What remains to be verified is whether or not this info is also authentic. Since we agree that it is both, my question remains, why would a neutral person be vexed at that info's presence and even worse label it as 'vandalism'. I don't think there's an answer to that. Miskin

Above is Miskin, below is Lectiodifficilior:

We've already argued about who wanted it and who didn't. You are misrepresenting what I said.

That aside, it's vandalism for more than one reason. Leaving aside slant and purpose, it's completely out of proportion. Imagine a five-page entry on Jesus, composed mostly of descriptive prose with the occasional well-integrated quote. What if I picked one little controversial issue—whether Jesus knew Greek, for example—and added another five pages of quote after quote in support of it. Even if the quotes were balanced and contextualized, they would still be vandalism, the tin-eared injection of one person's personal obsession into a much wider topic. Lectiodifficilior 17:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What if that person was right? Would it still be vandalism? What if there was a fictional 21st century dystopia in which the historical events of WW2 were lost, and one Jewish person in effort to convince the world that the Holocaust existed, he cited "5 pages of quote after quote" in a way that you'd characterised as the "tin-earned injection of one person's personal obsession into a much wider topic", would you also call that vandalism? Or would you call it nationalism? Miskin

I would cite Godwin's law and say further debate on this is unlikely to convince anyone. Jonathunder 03:37, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Additional point by ~: Again, I find myself baffled by how your thoughts connect. "This fact [that you didn't want it, but I did] automatically makes any information concerning Alexander's or the Macedonians' ethnicity pertinent." What! Why is that? How does that follow? I challenge you, I double-dog-dare you to unpack that logic. You think I'm some jerk who was wanted the section. You disagreed. You didn't think it was pertinent. Somehow this makes it pertinent? What what?

At some point we are no longer obligated to speak to you as a mental equal and debating partner, and conclude something is very very wrong here. Lectiodifficilior

It made it pertinent or at least relevant, because it was added under the "ethnicity" section, which was at the time decided (by you) that it should stay in the article. I feel little interest in explaining the obvious. Your childish insults have no effect on me. Read the quotation in my personal page. Miskin Loopy. Simply loopy. As for you being unable to be ordered, we'll see about that. Lectiodifficilior 17:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MAJOR revert

Hi. I reverted it back to where it was before "01:39, 1 Jun 2005" IP address "24.193.12.231" made his edits. Those edits were were larger than we realized. Miskin and I set about fighting over his additions to the Ethnicity section, failing to realize the bigoted Greek-nationalist edits User:Miskin so strenously defended were apiece with garden-variety defacement in other sections. When User:DannyK spotted and fixed these startling "unencyclopedic phrases," this alerted me that something had gone a-cropper without us realizing it.

Examples:

"So far, The only facts that we have about Alexander's sexuality are NONexistant!"
"How much can anyone believe a person who wrote about someone 3 centuries apart?? Well the opposing arguments we do have about Alexander (and him rejecting homosexual proposals) are as follows..."
"(if you do not know who he is then look him up)" (on Nearchus)
"To be continued.................."
reference to the "Efimerethes" (that's a gem of Modern-Greeklish if ever there were one!)

I feel two things:

These stupid ethnic battles are causing us to miss simply stupid edits.
I take cool satisfaction that Miskin was defending the sponsor of such puerile edits.

Lectiodifficilior 20:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm now going to see if I can re-change all the changes since then that weren't corrections of these problems. Of course, I can't monopolize this, but it will take me a little time. If you're not adverse to this idea, give me a second to do it.

PPS: Okay. I'm done. If I made any errors, my apologies. Lectiodifficilior 21:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 67.101.27.115

The edits by 67.101.27.115 are unacceptable. (You see, Miskin, it's not only Greek nationalist point-scoring I object to.) They are ungrammatical, irrelevant point-scoring. To see wheere this guy is coming form, check out his user page (User:67.101.27.115?). All he does is troll around making edits with a strong ethnic bias, generally ungrammatical and often silly, ie., denying that Albanian is an Indo-European language. Lectiodifficilior 04:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't defending vandalism nor accusing you for objecting Greek nationalist edits (after all I removed it for you). I was objecting this "unfair neutrality" that people tend to force when it concerns an alien to them ethnic debate. Miskin

Reversion

203.59.206.40 is apparently not fond of the possibility of Alexander having been homosexual. I've reverted his edits but am restoring two paragraphs that seem fine:

Aristotle was Alexander's tutor; he gave Alexander a thorough training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy.

Later in life Alexander married several princesses of former Persian territories: Roxana of Bactria; Statira, daughter of Darius III; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. He fathered at least two children, Heracles born in 327 BC by his mistress Barsine the daughter of Satrap Artabazus of Phrygia, and Alexander IV of Macedon by Roxana in 323 BC.

Also, I should note that some of the quotes the anonymous IP ascribed to Aristotle in De Anima -- "'They are a deviation from the norm' he argued '....some diseased things result from nature or habit...' (Aristotle - De' Anima)" -- don't seem to appear in De Anima. At least, I couldn't find them with ctrl+F. Mr. Billion 20:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job; his stuff was clearly POV. Maybe the nationalist polemic can die down for a while and be replaced by pro- and anti-gay polemic—wait, that wouldn't be any better. Lectiodifficilior 21:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has Homsexual Tendencies?

Dear Friends,

I noticed you had problems with Greek Nationalist vandalism on your sites. And am sure they may have tried to change parts of this article in the past. Dosn't this tell you anything?

However I am quite concerned about your sources. You seem quite biased for a group which claims to be objective. Why are you all so convinced Alexander was gay?? I am an Ancient History Student and have never been taught that his gayness was an actual fact. You seem to be the only online encyclopedia which claims He was definitely Gay or Bi or Homoerotic.

Are you not concerned about your credibility? I have come accross much evidence that this is all eroneous and based on recent literature.

Previously I have in fact been active in promoting Wikipedia as objective in many discussion forums I belong to. I feel quite let down that you are not giving an opportubnity for there to be presented an objective view of his sexuality.

Although I believ in freedom of speach, this is different because you claim to be giving an unbiased opinion. I am seriously considering of printing this article and filing a law suit on the grounds of "defamation of a national hero" if you don't do something soon. JamesTheJust 11:57, 5 Jun 2005.

Oh, please do. That would be fun! First problem, find a court that accepts such a crime. Second problem, who are you suing? Lectiodifficilior 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moderators Are Gay ?

The moderators are Gay and they are not making Alexander seem Gay to discredit him but they are infact doing so because it excites them due to their own Gayness.

I'm aquiver with excitement. If only my wife knew the secret me — the homosexual joy I get from editing Wikipedia. Lectiodifficilior 22:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am gay and so is my wife. I expect the children will all be gay too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Tony, my man, let's be gay together! We can hang out and excite our gayosity by editing this gayolicious entry! Lectiodifficilior 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to even bring this topic of sexuality into the Encyclopedia because it is trivia. When a person reads about "Alexander the Great" which is his commonly known name and not Alexander III, there is little interest in his sexuality. The format of my previous edit is based on the following guide for writing an article:

1. Name (most Common), Other Names. Birth and Death Dates Place of Origin and Birth Ancestory and Family Herritage/llineage

2. Personality: - Education - Knowledge - Skills - abilities

Important Events defined by Situation, Actions, Outcomes

3. Important Actions defined by Situation, Actions, Outcomes

(The same or similar one used by Plato - hisa had 7 points.) Then again didnt expect anything better from a USA encyclopedia, Kings of BS forever!

--Ephestion

Talk edits

User:JamestheJust just added:

Mr. Billion got rid of this as "vandalism." But I feel that entries on talk are never vandalism, unless they intend to change what someone else wrote. On a more practical level, abusive statements are good evidence in mediation or when the time comes to get someone banned.

Otherwise, my thanks to Mr. Billion, who is doing the Lord's work tracking down anonymous edits to talk—most are merely anonymous by mistake, or from people who don't know how to sign. Lectiodifficilior 05:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that User:JamestheJust's edit constituted vandalism because he inserted that text immediately before Ephastion's name, apparently to make it seem as though Ephastion had said it. I guess it's possible that Ephastion and JtJ are the same person, but that would be even worse. There's that, and the fact that JamestheJust just erased this section we're talking in. I just restored it. So yeah, he's a vandal at this point. We probably should consider banning him.

By the way, I was doing that tracking down out of boredom, so it could more accurately be called the Bored's work. :) Mr. Billion 22:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY or BI

PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY

“When Philoxenos, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a young man in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander)responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?” (From Plutarch’s On the Luck and Virtue of Alexander A, 12)

“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 21)

“When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus, of Tarentum, who had two young men of surpassing beauty to sell, and enquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 22, 1) please consider --JamesTheJust 06:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)COSOMOS

Here's the document to which he was referring, although it's a different translation. Mr. Billion 02:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

recent edits

We don't have to read the bulshit. I strongly sugest one of the administrators will block this article so we will be able to rewrite it. Afterwards, I suggest it will remain locked. This is one of most important articles and it has to be written in a proper way. Gilgamesh he 17:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandals

There is no such thing as a Greek Vandal, they are your relatives not mine.

We are not nationalists we are phil-hellenes which means when asked whose side are you on we respond "On the side of Truth"(Plato).

This article is a disgrace. There was obviously no argument to put up such nonsense and yet despite this discussion being overwhelmingly supplied with appropriate historical evidence you refuse to accept it in your article.

The term "Lion of the East" and also "God Of War" are titles used for Alexander. The intro should read "Alexander the Great also known as Alexander III" because I'm sure hardly anyone came to his page searching for Alexander III. Remove the category Sexuality it is not needed. Replace with "personal Life" and include relative information regarding his relations other than sexual. For example the only reason anyone wants to know if he was married is to know who his heir was. Hetrosexual marriages are important for this reason they have historical lineage attached. If on the other hand he gave his entire empire to a gay lover (which he didnt) then that also would be historical fact.

I think someone should start a legal process on this issue. There should be a law to force all Literature posing as authentic sources of information to have a bright red stamp on every article page: "CAUTION, READING MAY BECOME DETREMENTAL TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE." (Authorised by the General Surgeon).

(See I told you about the mods.... :) )

--Ephestion

I don't think anybody has accused you of vandalism. Vandalism only enters the issue because User:JamesTheJust inserted an insult that looked like it was attributed to you, and then deleted another user's comment. Unless you're making a pun about the German Vandals, but that makes an assumption about other editors' genealogy that doesn't exactly make sense.

The question of in which order to put the titles "the Great" and "III" is a very minor issue and I don't see why it matters.

I'm wary of edits from you and JamestheJust because it seems as though you both have an agenda. When you resort to calling other editors names and shouting in all-caps in favor of a certain point of view, it suggests a strong attachment to that point of view. Chill out.

By the way, try to remember to sign your posts with "~~~~"

Mr. Billion 18:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quick apology. I meant to remove some ethnic point-scoring, and somehow it backfired. I must have not reverted far enough back. Anyway, my apologies to all. I was trying to keep the "whom he was himself" out "Alexander integrated non-Greeks into his army." Lectiodifficilior 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Incidentally, the thing about "There is no such thing as a Greek Vandal, they are your relatives not mine" is a clear-cut ethnic attack. That most us look with bemusement on "Vandal" as a term of ethnic abuse—the attack being as silly as calling someone a Lydian or a Avar—should not distract us from the fact that it was meant that way. It is a neat indicator of the strange millenial biggotry such a person carries around in his head that he would attack someone so. I for example, could fairly be called a Norman, but it would never enter my mind to insult my "peoples'" millenial enemies—what, Arabs, Sicilians, Anglo-Saxons? Oh, I probably have some Gaul in me too, so I should add Italians and Paphlagonians. Paphlagonian BASTARDS—'m off to deface all the Attalid entries in the spirit of my new-found ethnic identity! Lectiodifficilior 20:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh Please!!!

I only deleted "the other user's comments" because they deleted my comments and added their own. I also felt embarrassed about what I had said before and was about to delete my own comments but someone did it already. Chill Out!!! And btw I think he/she/it (the record is now gone ) was being offensive.

And I apologise to my friend Ephestion if I accidently changed the location of your signature, I thought I was doing you guys (who have clearly layed claim to this article) a favour since I genuinely thought that the comment:

== Moderators Are Gay ? ==

The moderators are Gay and they are not making Alexander seem Gay to discredit him but they are infact doing so because it excites them due to their own Gayness. etc..................

Was truly a response by Lectiodifficilior, to my comments as a derogatory response against me in an attempt to offend and debase my previous comments and queries.

Perhaps I was wrong and i apologise.

I'm sorry for the confusion and the unnecesary reaction this has caused.

Furthermore you accuse me, Miskin, Ephestion et al of being bigots.

You have got to be kifdding.

I would like you to truly ask yourself Lecto, Gilgamesh and Mr Billion who is the true bigot and vandal?

All i/we asked for (as many others have also) was for a fare unbiased portrayal of ALexander, that's all.

From Wikipedia:

"...A bigot will continue to hold these opinions even when confronted with evidence that challenges such stereotypes. To protect his views, he may either dismiss the challenges he encounters as an aberration to the norm and ignore the fact that they threaten to undercut his prejudices. On a more extreme level, he may deny the evidence altogether...." (this could do with a bit of correcting btw. but if I did it, you would probably label me a bigot and a vandal again.)

Look up bigotry.

I was given the idea that editing of articles was allowed in Wikkipedia, obviously not!!!

ie. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit"??????? Yeah Sure! pull the other one.

"Each to their own" I suppose as the idiom goes.

JamestheJust

PS.

You can rest at ease, I won't be using Wikipedia or any other of their online services. Thank you, you have convinced me now that I should use reliable sources from now on.

Cool. Mr. Billion 18:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment by User:Macedoniagreece

Note: Reformatted by Lectiodifficilior, because it wasn't displaying right (no line breaks).

For the biased Moderators who continue to allow pro-Skopjan and pro-homosexual propaganda articles on Alexander the Great

I have tried to correct false accusations (and pressumptions) about Alexander's Greekness and sexuality by giving facts. By facts I mean original ancient sources. But it seems people have a problem with that. I do not want to seem arrogant, but I doubt too many people know so much about Macedonia as I do. Take a look at a web page I write for- www.macedoniagreece.com for instance. It is a page dedicated to the history of modern Macedonia, but we are working on the ancient and Byzantine history as well. We are associated with people who have doctorials in classics. What kind of knowledge does this person have over here? I also tried to present people with a good book to read (Debunking the myth of Homosexuality in ancient Greece- By Adonis Georgiades -who has his doctorial in classics from Athens University) but that was deleted as well.

I ask for people to provide direct ancient sources about Alexander , but what do they give? Unreliable secondary (if that) sources trying to disgrace one of our national heroes. Of course we will be speaking to our lawyers about these ethnic biases being presented by fanatics.

There's something strange about someone with a POV username (the Greek Nationalist catchphrase is "Macedonia is Greece") making such edits. How would others respond to "SudetenlandGermany" making edits to pages on the Anschluss or etc.

That website isn't a general one about Greek history, but a specifically nationalist "call." That's fine, but it's not what you said it was, nor is that sort of thing appropriate for Wikipedia. I particularly enmjoy the demand that the ROM drop "Macedonia" from its name unless they accept that they are, in fact, really Greeks who have been "brainwashed." I guess you can have your cake and eat it too!

In any case, what you fail to get is that the entry does not deny the "Greekness" of Alexander or the Macedonians. It avoids the issue. After all, the article is about Alexander the Great, not ancient ethnicity or modern nationalism. As for homosexuality, the current wording does not assert a straightforward "homosexual' identity, but seeks to put Alexander's sexuality within its ancient context.

The book you tout, Debunking the myth of Homosexuality in ancient Greece, has to my knowledge never been reviewed by a single peer-reviewed journal of Classics, let alone favorably. No doubt this is because professional classicism is a gay conspiracy. It is, however, reviewed on line in the "Greco-Report," a pleasant website that inter alia accuses the Young Turks of being secret Jews, rails against the "vicious, Christianity-hating cabal of Zionist overlords." Lectiodifficilior 20:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding Issues and changing history

Dear Moderator, It seems that you have obviously taken a side. Because a book is not reviewed by these so called classic scholars does not make a book illegitimite. This person has wrote quite a few books. And the language he uses is that of what shakepeare would be to English. The man is well read on history, language ect.. (and there are quite a few others as well). Here is an example just for your eyes - [5]

As soon as these books are translated to English be sure we will promote them in the United states, England, Australia and so forth. It is only right that Greeks should (for Gods sake- who will tell us that NON-Greeks know OUR language and the meaning of terms and words better than us (Greeks?)!)have a say in their own history. We are sick of others writing about our history (in their prospective!) How many Greeks do you have working on wikepedia I wonder ?

Why have you deleted ancient qoutes I gave from real references (about the Greekness of the Macedonians and the homosexual issues)? It does not meet your criteria? Why is it a goal in the last two years to make Alexander Bisexual or homosexual? Hmm, it seems like historical revisionism to me. Should we then revisit ,let say, the jewish holocaust? But of course that is a no no. But you still will not get it.

Do you know my relatives originally come from the Yugo part of Macedonia? My home is originally in Monastiri (now called Bitola). My great grandparents were thrown out of their home by the VMRO (IMRO) almost a century ago. Have you ever heard of Delchev, Gruev, Boris Sarafov, Tcakalaroff, Pop Traikoff, Hadji Nikolov? These are the reasons why this so called issue exists today. These famous Bulgarians (who said they were Macedonians) were (In brief) imports from the Kingdom of Bulgaria over a century ago to make Macedonia Bulgarian. My great grandparents had rifles put to their heads and made to forget they were Greek (and made to adopt a slavic sounding last name!) What do you have to say to that?

You would not have such a negative response if you at least , get rid of these homosexual remarks (that are unproven). That is the respectfull thing to do. - User:Macedoniagreece 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (sig added - Solipsist 17:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Can someone tell me why MacedoniaGreece's entries look screwed up? I don't mean content, I mean presentation. All the line extend off the screen, making it (even more) painful to read. Lectiodifficilior 17:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was because the paragraphs started with white space, which is Wiki short hand for blockquote formatting. Now fixed -- Solipsist 17:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My ancestry is Irish, so don't pretend your ancestors were uniquely hard done by. And frankly, declaring how intently politicised and recently nasty Greek history is is hardly going to convince the rest of the world that you can be dispassionate and impartial about it. Average Earthman 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, even better, User:Average Earthman isn't all hopping mad at me because eight generations ago my ancestors were English—at least as far as I know. Lectiodifficilior 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for "who will tell us that NON-Greeks know OUR language and the meaning of terms and words better than us?" the fact is that Greek philology is an international field, and not one in which Greeks are preeminent. Certainly there are many very capable Greek scholars in Greece, but German, France, the UK and the US have, in modern times, done considerably more important work in these fields than Greece. Indeed, serious study of the classics all but died out in Greece itself until it was reintroduced from Western Europe, and the major "advances" in the field (eg., Quellenforschung, Indo-European, Linear B, Oral Poetry) were generally made by non-Greeks. In any case, Greek academics today do not see the world in your nationalist terms, and undertand the difference between peer-reviewed professional scholarship and the claptrap you are pushing. Lectiodifficilior 21:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say that classical studies died out in Greece? When are you talking about , when we became a nation again? What period of time are you talking about? How can we continue anything when we were under occupation for so many years? Even so , Greeks living abroad still advanced in mathematics, arts ect.. Look at people like El Greco for example. And what do you call people like Kazantzakis? Mickey mouse? Do not get me wrong I never said we did not borrow from others but not the way you made it to be.

And for a small nation we have done much better than some of our Balkan neighbors. And what do you mean by re-introducing? We gave the other nations all we have. And what are you going to tell me, they introduced our culture back to us?

You also said that I made mistakes in my editing , but you did not ask me to corrct them. Instead you delet them even though they are direct quotes from ancient sources. And what about this little saying " It has been proposed " (By WHOM?) that he was this or that. If that is scholarly written then we should stop here. It goes back to what I said before. This is nothing more but historical revisionism. And it is propagated by a few.

And I doubt the Irish have suffered more than the Greeks in general. And that is not from a "Nationalist" prospective as you claim.

So can you answer my other questions? How many Greek writers are on here? Who wrote these little interesting lines like what I said in the previous line? Or something that is "generally considered" ? Or the blatant false accusation of " Curtius maintains that Alexander also took as a lover "... Bagoas, a eunuch exceptional in beauty and in the very flower of boyhood, with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate," (VI.5.23)." ? I have the Loeb classics volume of Curtius and it does NOT say he was his lover. Who made up God knows?! And by the way one fact for you is that Arrianus Flavius is the most reliable (as accepted by almost all scholars!) source of Alexander since he was one of the few to actually write from direct sources Eumenes and his Generals. Curtius (the Latin) used (at least) secondary sources. But your page just makes Greeks look bad- with qoutes like " The suggestion that Alexander was homosexual or bisexual has outraged many Greeks and Macedonians, who regard him as a national hero. " I think I made my case very clear now!

- User:Macedoniagreece 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (sig added - Lectiodifficilior 18:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I do not contest that there are great and interesting Greek authors, poets, painters and etc. from every period, or that Greek scholars were an important element in the Renaissance. Greeks, however, were not prominent in the creation of modern (once called "scientific") philology, and are not dominant today. Therefore, it is nationalist bunk to assert that only Greeks understand ancient Greek or can interpret ancient Greek literature, culture, history, etc. The same is true of Roman literature and history—it is not an "Italian" subject, but an international one in which the Italians have a place.

I'm a bit confused. My comments on your editing were with respect to the talk page, where your edits are unreadable until we fix them and make them visible. Thank you for thanking us.

I have no idea how many Greeks have written for this article—certainly many. Look back through the edits yourself (well over 1,000, I think) and see if you can spot any Greek sounding names. It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't require everyone to register their ethnic identity. It would come in handy when it's time to send the Turks off to labor camps.

Both in the Latin and the English Curtius says what you deny. You can discover the meaning of the English phrase "be intimate" next time you are at a bar; "Would you like to be intimate with me?" works wonders. The Latin word, adsum is a euphemism as obvious in context as "intimate" is in English. If you don't find that convincing enough, check out Curtius 10.1.25. Let's see if you can wiggle out of this one!

I'll give it in the English:

"For when Orsines had honored all the friends of the king with gifts beyond their highest hopes, to Bagoas, a eunuch who had won the regard of Alexander through prostitution (obsequio corporis), he paid no honor, and on beign admonished by some that Bagoas was dear to Alexander (Alexandro cordi esse), replied that he was honoring the friends of the king, not his harlots (scorta), and that it was not the cusom of the Persians to mate with males who made females of themselves by prostitution (nec moris esse Persis mares ducere qui stupro effeminarentur). On hearing this, the eunuch exercise the power which he had gained by shame and disgrace (flagitio et dedecore) against the life of a guiltless man. [Bagoas' revenge follows]"

Now Bagoas is a very shadowy character. He was given much prominence in the novels of Mary Renault, but this is almost wholly made-up. You could fit everything we know about him on one side of an index card. But one of those things would be that he was Alexander's lover (in fact, we can be more specific and say that it is likely Bagoas was the passive). As for Hephaestion, I suggest Prof. Reames-Zimmerman's article here. Another good resource is her article on Alexander's sexuality, on Pothos. These essays will give you background on what modern, academic scholars think about ancient sexuality, and Alexander's sexuality specifically.

Your ignorance of Arrian is very funny consider how much weight you give him. Arrian explicitly states he drew on Ptolemy and Aristoboulos. The notion that he drew on the "Ephemerides" (either by or under Eumenes' control) depends upon Ptolemy using them. Most contemporary scholars think the extant material from the "Epehemerides" are really Successor propaganda. Lectiodifficilior 19:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greeks Vs Latins

"Let's see if you can wiggle out of this one!" It is quite funny how Plutarch contradicts Curtius (actual quotes that you always delete)and actualy portrays Alexander as a Heterosexual (And I think I would believe someone like Plutarch(who was not biased )over Curtius (who was known to have a dislike for Greeks!)

Well the opposing arguments we do have about Alexander (and him rejecting homosexual proposals) are as follows...

“When Philoxenos, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a young man in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the young man) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: “You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?” (From Plutarch’s On the Luck and Virtue of Alexander A, 12)

“But as for the other captive women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes. And displaying in rivalry with their fair looks the beauty of his own sobriety and self-control, he passed them by as though they were lifeless images for display.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 21)

“When Philoxenus, the commander of his forces on the sea-board, wrote that there was with him a certain Theodorus, of Tarentum, who had two young men of surpassing beauty to sell, and enquired whether Alexander would buy them, Alexander was incensed, and cried out many times to his friends, asking them what shameful thing Philoxenus had ever seen in him that he should spend his time in making such disgraceful proposals.” (From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander, 22, 1)

And if you have even bothered to read my earlier edit you would see my "ignorance". I clearly mentioned the efimerithes (which ment "dailies" back then- and is the modern word for newspaper)in this paragraph that I posted. And these are proven facts.

While Alexander's expedition was in progress two seperate accounts of it were being made; one was a record of each day's events, the Efimerithes, or daily reports, under the supervision of Eumenes of Cardia and Diodotus of Erythrae, the other a finished history by Callisthenes of Olynthus. After Alexander's death several contemporaries wrote histories of the expedition. The most important of these were Aristobulus and Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who based their accounts on Callisthenes (see Arrian, Preface). All these records, together with a group of histories composed in the next century or two, have been COMPLETELY LOST, except for a few fragments. Basing his accounts mainly on the histories of Ptolemy and Aristobulus ,hence on callisthenes and the Efimerithes makes Arrian the best and most credible of all historians.

Arrian in his preface says that he has accepted the statements of Ptolemy and Aristobulus where they agree, and where they disagree he has accepted the more credible. Arrian adds that he has incorporated some statements of other writers, but he gives them merely as reports of Alexander's action.

The most complete quotations from the Efimerethes for the last days are to be found in Arrian and Plutarch. They did not come directly from the Efimerethes but from someone unknown who was using and qouting them.In Plutarch,Eumenes ii. 2-3, shows that the papers of Eumenes were destroyed at the time when Nearchus (if you do not know who he is then look him up)was about to sail from the Indus to the Persian Gulf (most likely in October 326 BC, Arrian Viii. 21 ) Curtius wrote his ten books primarily from secondary sources (in which books I, II, are totally lost, V, VI, and X are partial and verses have been added on to complete them). Curtiu's knowledge of Greek might have been limited. It is probable that he used translators while writing his books, making him the LEAST reliable out of all the authors (being that he was a Latin).

So could you please read (which you obviously did not) my articles before deleting them ? They are (at least) more truthful than some of these "historians" who write on these pages. I believe it is CASE CLOSED?!

Complaints

Date of his death June 11 not 10

Transliteration

Alexander Romance

Aristander of Telmessus

"medizing"

Greek etymology, Albanian nationalism

Diadochi

greec terminology

Additions

Homosexual, or not?

Macedonian Slavs

Alexander sources and legend

Sources

Legend

Popular

Sexuality changes

Link suggestions

Wars of the Successors, etc.

Legacy and division of the Empire

Conflict of the Diadochi

Partition

Alexander the great

Strategies

Greek name relevant, but not Macedonian

Apparently spurious reference to Quintus Curtius

References to Fox

Was Alexander Greek?

On the three ethnically-based changes

And now for some Iranian edits

Oh Please!

Is "Descendent of Achilles" really a title?

More on titles

Edits on Tarn and Green

Language of Alexander

Removing cleanup tag

Macedonian Slav

Listen...

A few points before re-editing

Response to Miskin

Removing titles VOTE

Remove it

Keep it

Recent spam

Other languages

Changes to ethnicity section

More debate about ethnicity

Dynastic Chart

Dispute resolution

A new point of view on ethnicity

new proposal

MAJOR revert

Edits by 67.101.27.115

Reversion

Wikipedia has Homsexual Tendencies?

Moderators Are Gay ?

Talk edits

PROOF THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS NOT GAY or BI

recent edits

Vandals

Comment by User:Macedoniagreece

Avoiding Issues and changing history

Greeks Vs Latins

Archive