Talk:Classical antiquity/Archive 1

Charlemagne?
"This tendency reached its peak when Charlemagne was crowned "Roman Emperor" in the year 800, an act which led to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire." for some reason this sentence doesn't seem right.

Cleanup?
Someone put a Cleanup notice on the article in chief. No comments were left in talk suggesting what sorts of improvements were desired; no suggestions were made on the cleanup page either. While the article is far from perfect, my understanding is that current procedure requires issues to be mooted on talk as part of the cleanup process. Not knowing what improvements are requested, it's hard to respond to this, so I have removed the tag. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My fault. Guess I'm still learning the ropes.  I thought the article was confusing (it seemed to me to read like a bunch of loosely thrown-together sentences) and could use some restructuring.... Maybe I'll take a crack at it myself a little later, although I'm not sure I know enough about the topic to do it justice.  24.215.177.116 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to be a broad overview of a pretty vast subject, to point people in the direction of more specific articles. It probably could use some restructuring. Step up to the plate, and feel free to fiddle with it. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article was not well written. I also feel that It is not well structured, and contributes little to an understanding of antiquity. Rather than modification I suggest simply deletion. Ian Bacon. 11 Nov 05
 * Well, Ian, I think that's sort of an orthogonal issue. Anyone is welcome to nominate any article they wish for deletion, so you should feel free to nominate this one if that's how you feel - of course, pretty much everyone voting will be using WP policy to make their decision, which kind of represents a more stringent set of requirements for deletion. Anyway, it's been over a year since concerns were raised by 24.215.177.116 - if they still exist with the current revision they should be brought up more specifically than 'I thought the article was confusing and could use some restructuring'. If not, I really think the cleanup tag should go. -Dom 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some simple re-structuring. Can we remove the cleanup tag now? Bacchiad 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just have. --Dom 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation
There is no real confusion here with the classical era in Western music: "This article describes the ancient classical period. For the classical period in music (second half of the 18th century), see Classical music era." No reader searching for Classical music will arrive at Classical antiquity. May we remove the notice? --Wetman 16:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC) The average searcher won't confuse the two, yes, but anyone who is looking for information on music history, for example university students doing a music degree will certainly want to have a disambiguation there as ancient Greco-Roman art/music forms much of the basis of the history courses within such degrees.
 * I agree: this is not really seen as classical antiquity
 * I disagree: The Classical Period in music (1720 to 1830, not the umbrella term for anything from the Renaissance to the modernistic movement) was so named because it was a revival of the schools of thought behind the Classical Era (ie. Classical Antiquity)

Pagan, my ass
"In philosophy, the efforts of St Thomas Aquinas were derived largely from the thought of Aristotle, despite the intervening change in religion from paganism to Christianity."Frankly, I find the term paganism in this context more than mildly offensive. I have to admit I can't readily discern what should replace it... Any ideas? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hellenic to Christian"? or "Greco-Roman to Christian"? Haiduc 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Paganism is such a vague umbrella term and so commonly misused that it shouldn't be used to describe anything.  Refer to specific religions such as Geek mythology, Roman mythology, Celtic mythology, etc.

No other civilization included?
I was redirected here when typing classical civilization, from the Gupta page in which clearly said that it along with the Han dynasty was considered as a classical civilization, and yet there was no mention of neither? Why?
 * Confusion between classic, as in "setting a standard" ("classic Sung ceramics" "Mayan art of the classic period") and classical, which always implies Greek and Roman arts. Antiquity is the broader category of Old World cultures that came to their various ends very roughly about the fifth century. Classical Antiquity doesn't usually imply Mycenaean arts, Pharaonic Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. In literature "the Classics" imply Greek and Latin literature through Late Antiquity. Is that about right? --Wetman 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Classical Civilization usually includes the major civilized cores of the world between 1000 B.C.E.-500 C.E. and includes Ancient China, India Rome and Greece. For example, Peter Stearns in World History in Brief: Major Patterns of Change and Continuity defines it as such.
 * But this article is not about civilizations that existed in the classical period but about the classical civilization of Greece and Rome.--RafaelG 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Like the original user, I was redirected to this page when I looked for classical civilization. The civilizations in India and China were indeed classical civilizations, as characterized by trends such as a well organized scholar-gentry and emphasis on internal development; they were not merely civilizations that existed in the classical period. Perhaps a separate entry should exist for classical civilization, if classical antiquity refers exclusively to Greco-Roman civilization? Arnob 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In school I was taught that the classical era applied to all Eurasia during that period, and that there was a separate classical era for Mesoamerica; although, I only heard the term classical antiquity used for Greece and Rome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.168.215.253 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Greco-Roman wrestling still exists and it is still a sport around at least all of the US. It shouldn't be placed in a classical antiquity page.  All I suggest is that you put a link at the end of the page.

Impact on sexuality?
Respect for the ancients of Greece and Rome affected politics, philosophy, sculpture, literature, theatre, education, and even architecture and sexuality. To what extent did respect for classical antiquity influence sexuality in the 18th and 19th centuries? As I recall, the Greeks and Romans got up to some pretty incredible escapades in that area. -Toptomcat 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed
Some article-wide issues mentioned above still apply. But I've added the cleanup tag to the "Looking back on the classical" section only. It's a random assemblage, out of chronological order, devoid of any authoritative citations or perspectives. It mentions a 1969 book by Roberto Weiss as if an event in our understanding, when the importance of the encounter with antiquity to the Renaissance is common knowledge of much older vintage, and ought to be presented with at least a small scattering of facts, or not at all (cf. Renaissance humanism, Renaissance). As far as I can tell, nowhere in Wikipedia is there even the start of a competent article on anything like Classical tradition in Western literature, Influence of Classical civilization, Classical political thought etc. Wareh 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to struggle against the "POV" tagging those articles would elicit. --Wetman 03:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What about modeling a rewrite here on the German Wikipedia article? The only serious flaw I see there is an excessive focus on history (the list of "ancient authors" contains only historiography), but it seems stronger on the whole, and it has a "Meaning and Influence" section that is less likely to raise hackles than what we've got here. Wareh 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From a very cursory glance at the German article I think it's a good model. My German is not that great, so I can't contribute much to translating. I'm a bit surprised there's nothing useful on the French Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of "classical"?
Should the word "classical" be capitalized uniformly, as it describes a time period, or no? What do manuals of style have to say on the matter? Robert K S 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The Portal currently shows up at four or five levels of category. Classical civilisation is merely a redirect to Ancient history.  Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's the current status.  Classical antiquity is just one period of "western" ancient history. If you want to restrict the scope, rename Portal:Classical Civilisation to Portal:Classical antiquity instead. I see that there's recent multiple reversions doing that!  --William Allen Simpson 02:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving the portal might be a good idea. Do we really need the pointless argument over whether the Romans were a distinct civilization? And if so, why? Septentrionalis 02:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Classical civilisation is merely::"Classical civilisation is merely a redirect to Ancient history. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's the current status." Well, the point is that it shouldn't be. Current status is not relevant. Can you point to these 'multiple reversions' - I can't find them.--Nema Fakei 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The page was here a lot longer than the portal. Rename the portal if there's a problem with names matching up.  Bacchiad 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider also that there's a category Classical Studies (and, as of about a day ago, Classical antiquity as well, courtesy of Mr Simpson, but I think that's complicating matters). Do we rename it Classical antiquity, Civilisation, or what?--Nema Fakei 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The operative words are if there's a problem with names matching up. WTF is the problem with keeping the article as is?    The article, as I said, has been doing just fine for quite a while without the categories and certainly without the portal.  Why do any of these Johnny-Come-Latelies necessitate a name change?  Bacchiad 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greco-Roman merge
Just to keep all the discussion in one place on the proposed merge, please discuss it on the Greco-Roman talk page.
 * Disagree: I don't like that because stuff happened during this time in other parts of the world at this time. Cameron Nedland 23:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree: There should be an "Ancient History" article with links to particular parts of the world and this article should be renamed "Greco-Roman history" and get a redirect from "classical antiquity" since no one uses "classical antiquity" to describe anything other than Greco-roman history.

Economics of Antiquity
Ran across this Prehistoric Origins European Economic Integration on Reddit today; has some interesting stuff about the economics of antiquity. OptimistBen (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

World wide view
There is currently a tag on this page complaining that this article does not present a world wide view of the topic. I respectfully suggest that this is silly. The scope of the article is clearly stated in the intro section as limited to the Mediterranean world. I suggested we add a see also section directing readers to articles describing the same time period in different parts of the world --ErinHowarth (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's deeply relevant to the article and besides, whatever you have written in intro doesn't supercede wiki policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think someone needs to verify whether Classical antiquity is usually considered a solely Mediterranean time period or global time period. Unless someone thinks we can make such a claim ourselves. I don't. — InvaderCito (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the normal meaning, as is easily shown. The tag was removed years ago. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dante
I just deleted Dante from the list of classical authors in the intro. Please tell me this was an act of eruditely juvenile vandalism, or one of those tiresome tests to see how long misinformation stays on Wikipedia, and not someone presuming to edit an article on "Classical antiquity" who so utterly lacked the most basic understanding of the topic. This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name. Dante is a "classic" author of the Western canon, but not an author of the historical era called "Classical antiquity."Cynwolfe (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of Dante was clearly a straggler here, of course he's not an ancient writer. But it wasn't a pure accidental coincidence I reckon; he shows a particular affinity with antiquity, especially Rome. He was more aware of pagan antiquity, and an admirer of it in a personal way, than just about any western medieval writer in the centuries before him. In that way he really is a kind of lead-in man to the renaissance.Strausszek (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One of several badly crafted sentences
... "fueling the Renaissance in Western Europe" - quite impossible, linguistically unsound since nothing which has ceased to exist can ever be "fuelling" events in another era; at best, it _provided fuel_ for the renaissance, but even that is nonsense, since the renaissance was not a 'combustion' of classical culture.

More appropriate would be:

"From the surviving fragments of classical antiquity, a revival-movement was gradually formed from the 14th century onwards which came to be known later as the renaissance."

- other suggestions are welcome, but please let them be in accordance with the facts. Jjjjc (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Affixes
A few edits ago, this article contained the sentence,
 * The culture of the ancient Greeks, together with some influences from the ancient Orient, prevailed throughout classical antiquity as the basis of art, philosophy, society, and educational ideals, being preserved and imitated by the Romans altogether in a rather outward sense.

This was changed to:
 * The culture of the ancient Greeks, together with some influences from the ancient Orient, prevailed throughout classical antiquity as the basis of art, philosophy, society, and educational ideals, being taken over by the Romans altogether in a rather outward sense.

with the explanation in the edit summary as being: Construction of sentence: not two times the prefix "pre-"

Well, first of all, I admire anyone trying to fine-tune the writing of our articles; there's no end in sight to the need for this kind of work. However, in this case, I think the editor made a mistake that a native-English speaker would probably not have made. It is, without question, important to watch out for repetitive words and affixes in our sentences and paragraphs. But sometimes we err in seeing a prefix where there effectively is none. While "pre-" is a suffix, and while the word "prevail" may well have originated with the use of "pre" as a suffix added to "vail", no one today uses "vail" as a verb in any way related to "prevail". It's not the same situation as using "preheat" or "predict", in which case the roots and related words (heat and dictate) are alive and well. Essentially, "prevail" is not seen to the ordinary English speaker as a root word with an affix, but rather, as a stand-alone word unto itself. Accordingly, there is no redundancy of prefix.

More importantly--and to the point--to a college-educated native English speaker--the sentence as previously written, was not improved by that edit. Besides its elimination of a problem that did not exist, it substituted an acceptable rendering of the Greco-Roman relationship with something of questionable accuracy. The Romans "took over" Greek culture? Does that mean that they and they alone had access to it? It's just an awkward phrase. How do I know so? Because I am a native speaker. When linguists look for patterns in language, the way they start their work is often to simply ask first, "How does this sound to the native speaker's ear?". I am quite fluent in one other language besides English, and have no trouble traveling on my own in countries where this is spoken. But I also know that, while my accent often fools others into thinking I'm a native speaker, my construction of sentences still occasionally gives me away. Though many people have told me I speak like a native, I realize that I am merely an advanced speaker, not a "near-native" speaker.

Anyway, getting back to the point, this sentence was not a particularly good one, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be improved upon. I'm only saying that the above-mentioned edit failed to do so. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

greco rome
this is basically a page of rome and greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

why is "classical antiquity" not written in capital letters, while "Late Antiquity" is?
Can anyone tell me why? I've tried some searching with Google, but didn't find and answer. I don't have any indication that Wikipedia is wrong on this, but it does seem inconsistent. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just following normal usage: Late Antiquity is a specific, rather short, period, like say the Enlightenment, whereas classical antiquity covers at least about 700 years (as does Middle Ages, I must admit). Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)