Talk:Historiography of Alexander the Great

Incomplete citation

From what source is this "^ a b c d e f Green, 2007, pp xxii–xxviii" it is the major reference of the article and is completely useless... 101.115.182.244 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox characterises these sources in Alexander the Great: some pithy quotes would support the text.--Wetman (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Lost Works" section

I'd like to suggest that this section be expanded with a one or two line summary of each lost work that explains how we know that they existed. Who refers to them? The five primary sources? If it's only these five primary sources, then just one or two sentences as a section lead will suffice. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Retitle?

"Historical Alexander the Great" sounds like the article Alexander the Great is based on fictional accounts. Could we change this to "Historical Records of Alexander the Great" for clarity? 184.78.207.117 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Actually Alexander was not a historical figure.there are no evidence accept references of people two thousand year after alexander.no coin of Alexander was found the coin which we see Alexander in horses was made by a roman gernal to mark his so call victory over pouras.in India Alexander was never mansen in any kind of book. Even chanakya the prime minister of marya umpire wrote a book which still exist' Arth shastra' which does not mansen Alexander.Parsian also never manses it just say that 'Alexander of rumi' which Alexander not sure.Archaeological evidence of Alexander is like the mythical warriors and gods.In India there are more evidence of Ram and lord Krishna juses mohamed but they are consider as mythical figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.59.66 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true though. How many Alexandrias are there? What about the multiple documents we do have of Alexander correspondence, or the many spiteful things Demosthenes wrote about the king while he was alive. Alexander had his own historian Calesthenes(sp) with him; his friend and general Ptolemy became the ruler of Egypt, and Ptolemy's accounts are largely what Arrian's book is based off of.

Awful grammar aside - which I don't want to mock you, because I assume you speak more languages than I do - you're right that the only ancient documentation on the man is of Greek and Roman origin. This is likely because they were either lost, as most stuff from the past is, or they didn't include it in their histories because it didn't reflect well on them. Maybe they didn't like that after his defeat Porus allied himself with Alexander, or, maybe it's the fact that during his ten short years as king conquering most of the continent, his army mutinied at the Hyphasis river and he had to end his Indian campaign.

Since most history was oral back then, I probably wouldn't want to tell my fellow Indians that Porus joined Alexander after a decisive defeat, then had to stop his campaign because his army finally had enough. In fact, I may have just told my children that there was no such person as Alexander.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyB88 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)