Talk:Alexander the Great

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAlexander the Great has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
September 11, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2019.
Current status: Good article

Lead image. Again.[edit]

@Dumuzid @Paul August @Furius @StarTrekker @Iskandar323, I'm starting to question the use of the mosaic in this article. Since the last discussion, I've taken a long, hard look at the picture, and he looks... a lot different here compared to near-contemporary busts and coins. I apologize for saying this so flatly, but the Alexander mosaic is ugly. Very visually unappealing. I much prefer this, this, or this all of which have the plus sides of being near-contemporary, somewhat Hellenic in origin, and having that iconic "Alexander staring ambiguously into the distance" look. Let me know what you all think. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It remains, as before, the most famous depiction of him and is probably modelled (per Stewart, Faces of Power) on a contemporary painting. The aesthetic judgment is totally subjective. I could just as easily claim that the breakage and wear of the sculptures makes them ugly and unappealing. Separately, it is an issue that the dates of those sculptures are uncited. Furius (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, but I am with Furius here. I am certainly open to considering a different image, but I would need to see some reliable sources to back up the argument. They may very well exist! Cheers and Merry Christmas to those who celebrate. Dumuzid (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy holidays to you, as well! Responding to those points, take the first two images I've provided for instance. The British Museum describes the bust as Hellenistic and dates it to 300 BC - 150 BC, meaning at the very least, it predates the Roman mosaic by half a century. The French and Russian Wikipedias, in which Alexander the Great is a featured article, use busts as their lead images. However, I do conceded that an image's aesthetic is purely subjective. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still remain unconvinced that the mosaic is really how most people imagine Alexander, just because its the best known individual work depicting him it doesn't mean its more representative of the man overall. I still think a contemporary portrait should be used for the infobox.★Trekker (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. This is kind of a bad example, but a good amount people only know Taylor Swift from songs like "Blank Space" or "Shake it Off", but to say that those two songs are representative of her entire career is simply absurd, seeing as she has ventured into country, pop, folk, alternative, etc. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just wanted to pop back in briefly to say that absolute chronology is certainly a valid data point, but I have my qualms about leaning on it so heavily in an era when contemporaneous information is not only somewhat rare, but may not always have strict fidelity to reality. Similarly, I think how well-known an image is can be used as another (though also non-dispositive) data point. For me, the ideal sourcing would be an academic source or subject matter expert saying "this is the most authentic image, because...." or even, "this is the most well-known image, because...." Of course, should a consensus form that differs from my thoughts, no worries. Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander the great[edit]

He had influences from 320s BC and 1973 AD. (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, but do you actually have a suggestion for the article? Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authoritative Sources?[edit]

Does anyone know of any authoritative and academic sources on Alexander? I'm thinking of something similar to the Yale English Monarchs series, probably the best sources on English/British monarchs. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bosworth 1988 (in the bibliography) is the go to work. Furius (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander The Great was defeated by King Porus[edit]

Alexander the Great was defeated by an Indian Ancient King Porus in Battle of Hydaspes in 326 BC. There are many facts behind this fact about the defeated battle that if the Alexander invaded India then why he returned back without fighting for other Indian regions, moreover India was ruled by many kings in their respective regions. Alexander wrote a letter to her mother about Indian that every soldier is like iron pillar in front of us and every Indian mother gave birth to Alexander who can never be defeated. Alexander also took help from other Indian King like to stop the war and talk, but each time Porus denied for it and continuously defeated Alexander's army and demoralized them for victory over India. Alexander returned to his homeland after this unbelievable defeat from King Porus and his dream of conquering worlds was incomplete. Sudskhokhar (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannica: The fight on the banks of the Hydaspes River in India was the closest Alexander the Great came to defeat. His feared Companion cavalry was unable to subdue fully the courageous King Porus. Hydaspes marked the limit of Alexander’s career of conquest; he died before he could launch another campaign. He still won that battle, however. See Battle of the Hydaspes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major Exhibitions?[edit]

Under the 'ancient and modern culture' heading section, is it appropriate to include major exhibitions on Alexander the Great? Politis (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or in "historiography"? This doesn't currently discuss modern historiography, but it could. Furius (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important: died at 32[edit]

Can we put this in the lead section, after “at the age of 32….” This is significant enough to justify lead section imo. Anyone agree?? (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh. It's already in the infobox, isn't it? Furius (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg The redirect Alexander of Macedonia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Alexander of Macedonia until a consensus is reached. QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 21:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]