Revision as of 01:15, 3 November 2008 editMactruth (talk | contribs)1,973 edits →Philip II was MACEDONIAN← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:55, 3 November 2008 edit undoA.Cython (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,493 edits →Philip II was MACEDONIANNext edit → | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
::::I understand your statements for your examples, but for Philip II Britannica SPECIFICALLY states, which is different then saying he is Macedonian and not mentioning "which is a Greek tribe", this specifically distinct Macedonians from Greeks. In the case of Aristotle, Greek tribes were located on the coast of Macedonia. ] (]) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ::::I understand your statements for your examples, but for Philip II Britannica SPECIFICALLY states, which is different then saying he is Macedonian and not mentioning "which is a Greek tribe", this specifically distinct Macedonians from Greeks. In the case of Aristotle, Greek tribes were located on the coast of Macedonia. ] (]) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::I ask you again! Have you read the sources properly? Have you read what have I said in my previous post? Britannica explicitly says that Pericles was an Athenian! So what? Athenians were Athenians and Macedonians were Macedonians and Spartans were Spartans! Look at the videos that Britannica provides for the article Ancient Macedonia and '''explicitly''' says: ''Macedonia is not only considered the '''birthplace of the Greek race''' but also the twelve Greek Gods... This religion common to all Greeks shows the close relationship between the Macedonians and the other Greek races of southern Greece...'' (it is the third video)! So now please tell me who is wrong here... either you misunderstanding the not so clarified text in Britannica or Britannica ''and'' its videos ''and'' the experts whose sources are used in the WP text... Hmmm... Also about your comment that it is not mentioned Macedonians as a Greek tribe... well I guess neither the Athenians or Spartans were Greeks since I do not recall anywhere explicitly and directly state this. Enjoy Life! ] (]) 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:55, 3 November 2008
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:AncientEgyptBanner
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
BC/BCE
This article was written using "BC". It was changed a few months ago by Neutrality to BCE. This is clearly in violation of policy, and I can think of no reason why it should continue to be reverted to BCE. john k 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Pederastic relationship with Pelopidas?
Any citations for this statement? Haiduc 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Skeletal remains
The article appears at odds with Science vol288 p511 "", 21 April 2000, which implies that the 1977 tomb did contain a skeleton, but it probably was not Philip II but Philip III. The abstract says "The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina Antonis Bartsiokas The Royal Tomb II was discovered in Vergina, Greece, in 1977. It contained a male skeleton and a rich array of grave goods. Evidence of trauma supposedly in the orbital bones of the skull has been thought to correspond to an eye injury that King Philip II is historically known to have suffered. However, reexamination of the orbital morphology showed no evidence of such pathology. Therefore, the skeleton does not belong to Philip II. New skeletal evidence shows that the skeleton belongs to King Philip III Arrhidaeus. In this case, the tomb may well contain some of the paraphernalia of Alexander the Great."
There are about three scientific articles about the remains of his body. One in Archeologike Ephemeris 1981, a later one in the Journal of Hellenic Studies by Musgrave et ali. and in the American Journal of Archaeology later on. I'll look for the exact years later on. All are concerned with the remaining bone material from all parts of the skeleton. At least in the last article there was a reconstruction of his face presented. But this reconstruction uses portraits of Philipp. Overall a public relation gimmick imo. -Anon
Audio
hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
__________________
I removed the following about skeletal remains as it appears at odds with journals and articles at present... "However, interestingly, no body or skeleton were ever found. All that remains of Philip II is ash, contained in a magnificent golden larnax, decorated with the Vergina sun, within his stone sarcophagus."
If you truly feel it ought to go back in, give a reason here on the talk page and reinsert it.
by the way: did you know funny jesters such as David Icke allege phillip to have been a reptilian humanoid? Foreigner 09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone want to add in the military reforms that Philip enacted in Macedonia?
is anybody talking i got a report to do and its hard can some1 help me out
Numbered user protection
- Could the page be protected from numbered users? This is pretty tiresome.Megistias (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Audio
hope i didn't break any rules by entering it.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I like how that he is Greek has a reference
quite humorous. What's next, referencing that USA is American? --Leladax (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I am afraid that Philip is Macedonian not Greek king He is Alexander's father The biggest king ever Both Macedonian not Greek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.14.11 (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Philip II was MACEDONIAN
"He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" - Britannica. Misplaced Pages has got to be more neutral on its articles. Mactruth (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yet, another rant on the matter - you could at least not shout (write in caps) --Laveol 16:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not shouting Laveol, its simply to prove to you that you have a pre-determined view that "Macedonia and everything Macedonian is Greek" and will not accept anything that does not verify that view, including neutral and sources with highly positive reputation like Britannica, stating "He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" Mactruth (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Experts on the field say otherwise. Please, read the sources properly. For example, in Britannica the entry for Pericles says that he is an Athenian (no mention that he is Greek) and Lycurgus was a Spartan (again no mention being Greek). Does the omission negates the fact that they were ancient Greeks? No because before Alexander the Great the ancient Greeks were a loose collection of 230 different tribes speaking 200 dialects scattered in many independent city-states! From archeological evidence so far ancient Macedonians were one of those Greek tribes... who later unified the rest of the tribes not only by force but also culturally (e.g. creation of koine). Besides that assuming that you are correct then could you please explain to me why on the entry of Aristotle it describes him as Greek and yet he was born in Macedonia? A.Cython (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your statements for your examples, but for Philip II Britannica SPECIFICALLY states, "He was not, however, a Greek politician or even a Greek, but king of the Macedonians" which is different then saying he is Macedonian and not mentioning "which is a Greek tribe", this specifically distinct Macedonians from Greeks. In the case of Aristotle, Greek tribes were located on the coast of Macedonia. Mactruth (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I ask you again! Have you read the sources properly? Have you read what have I said in my previous post? Britannica explicitly says that Pericles was an Athenian! So what? Athenians were Athenians and Macedonians were Macedonians and Spartans were Spartans! Look at the videos that Britannica provides for the article Ancient Macedonia and explicitly says: Macedonia is not only considered the birthplace of the Greek race but also the twelve Greek Gods... This religion common to all Greeks shows the close relationship between the Macedonians and the other Greek races of southern Greece... (it is the third video)! So now please tell me who is wrong here... either you misunderstanding the not so clarified text in Britannica or Britannica and its videos and the experts whose sources are used in the WP text... Hmmm... Also about your comment that it is not mentioned Macedonians as a Greek tribe... well I guess neither the Athenians or Spartans were Greeks since I do not recall anywhere explicitly and directly state this. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- Start-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Greek articles
- High-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages