Talk:Alexander the Great

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
DateProcessResult
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... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 20, 2019, and July 20, 2025.
Current status: Good article

How many people died due to Alexander?

How many people died due to Alexander? Especially, how many were killed when Alexander's armies pillaged? Acwilson9 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Physical appearance

At the moment, this section looks unfinished. There is a lot of debate about Alexander's pigmentation features, but this article hardly resolves them and contains a collection of statements that somewhat contradict each other. Does it make sense to add some kind of general summation of his probable appearance? We actually have a few images of Alexander that deserve a mention:

1. The Tomb of Philip II fresco. This is the most reliable evidence we have, as it is a lifetime portrait. It depicts a man with white skin, brownish hair and dark eyes. This should be considered the baseline for any realistic reconstruction of Alexander.

2. The Lion hunt's mosaic from Pella, probably posthumous (dated to 325-300 BC). This mosaic uses a pretty limited palette. The unnatural dead-white skin and yellow hair are artistic exaggerations or stylizations, but they probably hint at a underlying tendency towards lighter features, enough for artists to feel the need to emphasize them. Another mosaic from Pella, Stag Hunt one, possibly depicts Alexander and is executed in the same style.

3. The Alexander Mosaic. This is a high-quality Roman copy of a likely Greek original painting from the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. This mosaic does not contradict other sources, as many people think. His hair is depicted as brownish with light stripes, which clearly indicates that it was not black or dark brown, but closer to light brown or dark blond. This aligns perfectly with the Greek word "xanthos" used by Aelian. "Xanthos" does not mean Scandinavian light blond, it meant light hair in a Mediterranean context, it covered a spectrum from medium or light brown to blond and red. The depiction of sun-tanned facial skin versus a white neck is a masterful detail showing the artist's intention to portray realism. It corroborates Plutarch's description of a "fairness" of skin that would redden easily in the sun. His eyes are depicted as brown, the fact that no ancient historian made a special note of his eye color strongly suggests they were an unremarkable, dark color common in the region (that famous Arrian's quote about heterochromia that is found on the Internet is a fabrication).

4. The Alexander Sarcophagus. This is another highly reliable source, created by Sidonian craftsmen for a client who knew Alexander personally. It consistently shows Alexander with reddish-brown hair, white skin, and brown eyes, so in line with other sources. Noteworthy that both the Alexander Mosaic and the Alexander sarcophagus depict Bucephalus with blue eyes, so the palette allowed it.

In total, we can be pretty sure that his skin was white, maybe paler than a typical southern European. His hair is the most controversial part, it was definitely light by Mediterranean standards, most likely either light brown, reddish, or dark blond (perhaps it was light brown, red or dark blond in his youth and then naturally darkened). His eyes were almost certainly brown.

What do you think, does it make sense to rewrite the section in any way? I also wonder if anyone has come across a similar conclusion in a book by some researcher or art historian. Becarefulbro (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are the years accidentally reversed?

Like the years of his reign look like they're the wrong way around, like they're listed as "336 - 326BC" ect ect. Is it meant to be that way or is it an oversight? Amber1138 (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling that the wrong way round? The first year of his reign should be before the last year of his reign, shouldn't it? 336BC came before 326BC. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah wait yeah, BC isn't counted like AD years, yeah makes sense gotcha Amber1138 (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian titularies in infobox

I removed[1] and @PharaohCrab reinstated[2] a section from the infobox showing various Egyptian titles: Horus name (four), plus Nebty name, Golden Horus, Prenomem and Nomen, each presented in several ways including hieroglyphics, e.g.

Second Horus name:

  • ḥḳꜣ-ḳnj tkn-ḫꜣswt
  • Heqaqeni tekenkhasut
  • The brave ruler who has attacked foreign lands
G5
HqAq
n
nw
D40		 t
k
n
D54		 N25
N25
N25

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The section

  • Does not summarize article content
  • Does not consist of key facts about Alexander the Great
  • Is entirely unsourced
  • Is not supported by {{Infobox monarch}} and inserted instead by using its |regent= parameter, which is for the monarch's regent(s)
  • Is presented on desktop viewing as collapsed (reinforcing that it is not key information) but with attention-grabbing colouring
  • Is displayed expanded in the Wikipedia iOS app, massively increasing the size of the infobox so that readers cannot identify key facts at a glance.

PharaohCrab's edit summary on reverting was "this information is infant useful which is why royal titulares are present in the infoboxes of almost every other pharaoh which should include Alexander the Great", which does not explain how the information is "useful", let alone key. I haven't checked if we do this in the infoboxes of "almost every other pharaoh"; even if it does, WP:OTHERCONTENT would apply, and moreover Alexander the Great is not like other pharaohs, and this article is not templated on our articles about pharaohs.

Please could other editors join us in discussing whether to keep or remove that infobox section? NebY (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will individually address all points.
  1. I guess it does not summarize article content but that is a slippery slope that can lead to the removal of much more like the religion parameter or even the image in this article and many other things that most would oppose to being removed in other article.
  2. While not the most impotent facts they still can be useful and I personally have on similar pages.
  3. I have a source right here [3].
  4. That is the least intrusive way to add this info
  5. The colors are meant to align with Infobox pharaoh.
  6. That is indeed a problem but I was not aware of it and it should be fixed at the relevant template.
I don't think WP:OTHERCONTENT applies here because it is not just present in one or two articles but basically every pharaohs article because it is directly built into Infobox pharaoh and is also included in the articles for the other members of the Argead dynasty that ruled Egypt (Philip III of Macedon and Alexander IV of Macedon) in the same way it is implemented here so why should this be the sole exception.
If you can find a way to implement this into the body that may be the better option but I do think this info should be included somewhere in the article, perhaps in a similar way the titulary in implemented into the body of Mentuhotep II.
P.S. I'm not sure what you mean by "not templated on our articles about pharaohs". PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 15:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Compliance with policies and guidelines isn't a slippery slope; it's foundational! The slippery slope is arguing that as we allow one element, such as a brief mention of religion, then we must allow anything, however great, however obtrusive. But there is no requirement that we can only use images that appear in the body of the article and no-one's suggesting it.
  2. In what sense are the eight royal titularies, each expressed in two transcriptions, one translation and hieroglyphics, useful or important? I don't understand "I personally have on similar pages".
  3. Pharoh.se is not a WP:RS.
  4. It isn't the least obtrusive way to add that content; a collapsed table in the body of the article would be less obtrusive than an entry in the infobox, even if that infobox entry wasn't highlighted.
  5. Using the colouring of {{tl:Infobox pharaoh}} is discordant; this infobox does not use that pallette. Very few readers would look at that colouring and think "Aha, that's the same colouring Wikipedia uses for boxes about pharaohs! This must be something Egyptian."
  6. It's a problem with the code you've used; fixing the other infobox won't affect this one.
This is not the sole exception; we don't have such entries in any of the infoboxes of Alexander's predecessors as rulers of Egypt, nor should we - that would be the tail wagging the dog.
I should have said that this article is not patterned on our articles about pharaohs. Sorry that wasn't clear, I'd been thinking too much about templates. NebY (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharaohCrab Are you now able to accept my removal of the Egyptian royal titularies from the infobox? If not, we could seek WP:3O or go to WP:DRN, or we could seek editors who already work in appropriate fields by placing a neutral invitation to join the discussion at relevant wikiprojects, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. NebY (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure,I still disagree but I'm not going to fight you about it PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 20:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go ahead with removal. Thank you. NebY (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Palestine

Summary spreadsheet references Palestine both historically and currently. Neither are correct. In both cases the correct geographical location is Israel. Both ancient and modern day. The term Palestine wasn't used for this region until many centuries after Alexander's time. Please correct. Gkorol (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Παλαιστίνη (Palestine) is the term that Herodotus used several times in the earliest surviving work of Greek prose, written before Alexander was born.(1.105, 2.104, 2.106, 3.5.1, 3.91, 4.39.2, 7.89.1, 7.89.2) NebY (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"written before Alexander was born" Yes, since died in the 420s BC, about 70 years before Alexander's birth. Palestine appears in Greek text for the last 26 centuries. The neologism Judea starts appearing around the 1st century AD, per the Timeline of the name Judea. Dimadick (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_the_Great