Talk:Magna Graecia

Cities
I deleted the Sicilians cities' names (Syracuse, Akragas) since Sicily was not part of Magna Graecia. GC
 * "Sources differ on whether it included Sicily, as well as Apulia and Calabria." This basic question can't remain in the article; it needs to be addressed better than this, entirely in light of Strabo, Ptolemy and contemporary usage, not our modern opinions, whatever they may be. --Wetman 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to bring this point up. I remember a tour guide stating that Magnia Graecia only referred to the Greek colonies on the mainland and that the colonies in Sicily were called something else. I also have guidebook for Paestum that also states this but unfortunately it does not mention the name for the Sicilian colonies. The book also mentions that the Greek name for Magna Graecia was Megale Hellás. --L.J. Brooks18:29, 07 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Magna Graecia also includes Sicily which also extensively colonized by Greeks. This is clearly stated by the article and is correct. Initialy the term 'Magna Greacia' refered only to south Italy but later (after 100 B.C.) it also included Sicily. Kassos (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add the Greek in Greek script as well. Thanks! -- Kaihsu 18:01, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

The greeks did not always call themselves, Hellenes. For about 1000 years, they were Romaioi, Romans. -rome1453


 * "Com' is famous, the Latin spirit and that Greek from had always coexisted in the history of the Roman Empire in that magnificent civil osmosis that very we know. On purpose of the cultural identification with the same Empire it must notice that the Byzantine Greeks in other words defined same Greco-Roman. The same today present Romeo last name tutt' in the Calabria of root bizantina means, in Greek, "Roman"." In editing, I couldn't make sense of this. If there is material here, please edit it back into the article. --Wetman 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Greeks have called themselves Hellenes since ancient times and still do today. The fact that Romaioi was sometimes used to refer to Greeks in Byzantine times (East Roman empire) has no relevance to Magna Grecia and does not mean Greeks are Romans. Graikoi (where word Graecia comes from) was a prehistoric Hellenic tribe. Kassos (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Greater Greece"
I was under the impression that the western languages' names for Greece come from this region, not the other way around. The early Romans knew the Hellenic people best via their colonists in southern Italy. Thus, they referred to all Hellenes (even those in their native Hellas) by the name of the colony, hence the Latin Graecia, from whence we get Greece. In a similar way, IIRC, Turkish calls the Greeks a term derived from Ionia, the name of Greek colonies in western Anatolia. Then again, I could be completely mistaken. --Xyzzyva 04:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Names of the Greeks --Xyzzyva 04:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the other section above, Graikoi were a pre-historic name of a Hellenic Tribe in Greece. It is a Greek name and was used by Aristotle to refer to this Hellenic tribe. It was adopted by the Romans and thereon by the Europeans. The Turks call Greece Yunanistan because of the ancient Greek area 'IONIA' of Minor Asia which they call Yunan. Greece is also refered to as Yunanistan or Yunan by people in middle east.Kassos (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the Native name of "Magna Græcia"?
Shouldn't the name that the Magna Græcia Greeks(and the Greeks who lived in Greece) be in the article?--71.164.131.224 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Map of Magna Graecia
The map that is posted is wrong because it does not include Sicily (and also Syracuse is totally left out). Furthermore the Greek cities are not easily distinguished. I would suggest a big map with the Latinized Greek names and Greek letters in parenthesis with a big phrase "Magna Graecia" stretching from west Sicily to south east Italian mainland. The map you have posted only shows 1/3 of Magna Graecia.Kassos (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It also doesn't show Paestum and Cumae and the first Greek colony in Italy which was located on the island of Ischia (Pithekoussai). The map should be replaced.

Very short Article
This is (dissapointingly) a very short article. I cannot believe that the history of Magna Graecia can be put in one A4 page as you have done here. Six or seven centuries of ancient Hellenic history is summarized in one page? Magna Graecia was not called Magna because it was so heavily inhabited by Greeks. It was called Magna because the colonies there had prospered more than the metropolitan Greek cities in Greek mainland and had produced a civiliaztion in all aspects of life, letters and science. The Greek theaters and temples that survive in South Italy are witnesses of this civilization and are truly wonderful ancient Greek archaeological places. The Greek version of this article is no better. But at least it includes the names of over 60 (sixty) ancient Greek cities of Magna Graecia. One needs many books to write the history of ancient Magna Graecia and you have half a page. Where are the historians of wikipedia? Are they writing 20 pages about actors and 20 pages about pop musicians and have left half a page for Magna Graecia? and a map that is totaly wrong? Can someone answer me please? Kassos (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Justifies expansion
I agree that this article is far to skimpy for such an important topic. It is my view on the basis of having read Italian and S. Italian documents that Sicily must be included in Magna Gracia. The term was really never utterly precise, few such things are, but it referred to the ancient Greek cities ringing the coasts of the south of Italy as perceived by the Romans, and seen by the mainland Greeks as Italiotai and by Romans as Graeci. Because of the significance of this area to classical history, such as the wealth of these cities (Sybaris has lent its name to luxurious display to this day) and their impact on culture as well, we need only mention the school of Pythagoras in Crotone in Calabria and the Eleatic philosophers of Campania, and of course Archimedes and many rhetoricians (Giorgias eg) in Sicily. The area was also the site of major changes in wider Greek/Roman history and the Greekness of the area continued for centuries. It is still in evidence today, with stunning ruins, and the brilliant Bronzes of Riace in the Reggio Calabria museum, superb athletes in the games and the site of influence of Plato's thoughts about the Republic (Syracuse) etc. Dating can be quite precise Euboeans at 750BC at Pithecussae and Cumae; Spartans at Tarentum; Achaeans at Metapontum, Sybaris and Croton;etc These centres were themselves the bases for further expansion of Greek colonies into other parts of Italy, quite high up as far as Ancona in fact. Interaction and struggle with the Italic peoples should be mentioned. Also the effect this 'new world' had on Greek notions of participation and democracy is at least worthy of suggesting. Someone expert in this field should expand this article along these lines, indicating also that today Greek culture lives on in S. Italy, in language, some customs, architecture, and of course art and archaelogy. PRC 07 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All you need are some scholarly sources backing you and it can be included. But you need those sources stating specifically that Sicilly is considered part of Magna Graecia. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Magna Graecia is a HISTORICAL region limited to the Ancient times: Middle Ages and the Modern times have nothing to do with it
"Magna Graecia" refers to a historical region made up of Greek cities on the coastline of Southern Italy. This historical region existed in the ancient times. There is not a "Medieval Magna Graecia" neither a "Modern Magna Graecia", so what's the point of sections talkin about these nonexisting entities? Where are the sources that have been used to identify a Magna Graecia existing after the ancient times? Byzantines and supposed Greek immigrants - the only subjects treated by the undue sections, have absolutely nothing to do with Ancient Greece and therefore with Magna Graecia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.221.0 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The classical Latin pronunciation of Magna Graecia is ˌmɑŋnɑ ˈɡraɪːkiɑ. Λοῦκας (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Neapolis

 * Please update (as in the Italian version) the new archaeological data on Neapolis (which I remember is not a foundation but a re-foundation. Neapolis was founded in the 8th as Partenope and refounded as Neapolis in the 6th). Everything reported is out of date. Whenever I edit Mr. T8612, it deletes everything. Look at the Italian version, Hansel and Nielsen are still in 2004.82.53.75.170 (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources reported in the Italian version are the result of international conferences on Magna Graecia.82.53.75.170 (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hansen & Nielsen is the reference work on Greek city-states and remains the consensus. It lists city-states (poleis), not settlements, because there are hundreds of Greek settlements in Italy. Parthenope was only the harbour of Kyme and indeed quite old. However, Neapolis was founded near Parthenope as an independent city-state only c.470 BC. Archaeological data is meaningless in this regard. If the first date of occupation was considered, then the date of foundation for most cities listed would be much earlier, up to the Mycenaeans. T8612  (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Still all wrong and you prove that you are not informed. Neapolis, for reasons of space, was founded next to and not incorporated into Parthenope (Parthenope was narrow on a hill), and in any case Parthenope did not cease to exist with the foundation of Neapolis, but survived as an integral part of Neapolis (as a second peripheral pole) . Tito Livio speaks of two "Urbes" that formed a single CIVITAS and a single PEOPLE. Neapolis is simply the re-foundation, but it was born as Parthenope in the 8th, even if at the beginning it was only a port of Cuma. The reported book speaks generically of the city-states but does not dwell in detail and above all it is not updated archaeologically. The archaeological data whether you like it or not need to be updated on both Partenope and Neapolis, those listed are fifty years old. Not to mention that Neapolis was so called for the addition of new inhabitants and in reality it was not even the foundation of a POLIS but of a settlement that was added to an older one (Parthenope).82.53.75.170 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hansen & Nielsen are not the Bible, there are much more up-to-date and scrupulous sources. And above all, they do not publish news from fifty years ago, as in the case of Neapolis.82.53.75.170 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * What is not clear about the fact that we need to update the dates of the foundations of Partenope and Neapolis? (page 3). Thank you.87.10.33.72 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is a list of the poleis=city states. Poleis were political entities, not just settlements. There were hundreds of Greek settlements in Magna Graecia and they can't all be listed here. The article you cited says the same thing: Harbour, not polis., which is consistent with the date given by Hansen & Nielsen (c.470 BC).  T8612  (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to speak to someone who understands that the latest archaeological interventions show that Neapolis was founded in the last thirty years of the sixth century (maximum in the first years of the fifth and NOT in 470 BC)? And is it possible to speak to someone who understands that Partenope was not founded in the seventh century but in the eighth century? Is it possible to speak to someone who understands that those reported are old data? Thank you.87.10.33.72 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Once again, Neapolis was not a foundation but a re-foundation. The examples you give about Mycenaean settlements that preceded many polis mean nothing. Neapolis is like Constantinople, which was once called Byzantium. They were the same city. I understood that Neapolis became a real polis in the 6th century (and not in 470 BC) but the fact remains that it was born as Partenope in the 8th century and not as Neapolis. Neapolis was not even a real city, but a large district founded next to Parthenope. Do you understand this? Oh my goodness.87.10.33.72 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Help, incompetent user

 * "no, already explained several times why" (T8612). But what? What? All I did was update the data also reported by the University of Washington (not only in Italy). Can I speak to someone competent please? This user undoes the changes without any sense, thanks. Like the source (late 6th early V, which is different from 470 BC, and Parthenope 8th and not 7h) ... but you keep canceling (page 3)... unbelievable, without any sense. Is it possible to talk to someone else?.79.12.24.91 (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Neapolis developed continuously from the end of the sixth century BC to the end of the fifth century AD (PAGE 3, PAGE 3, PAGE 3, PAGE 3) 79.12.24.91 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Pithekoussai
Pithekoussai was not a polis but an emporium. It shouldn't be listed.79.12.24.91 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Archytas of Taras.jpg

MagnoGreci unofficial flag
Any chance to put the unofficial flag of Magna Grecia on this article on modern day section?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAPP7SpqUBM 2A02:587:B429:C1BC:730:979D:8A94:CDFA (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece
— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)