|Classical antiquity has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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
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)
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."
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)
File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
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)
Removing "Cultural Spheres in Europe" OR map
I've removed File:Cultural spheres in Europe.jpg from this article (and Greco-Roman world). The image seems to be entirely created from Original Research, and presents an overly simplified (and often inaccurate) view of the "cultural spheres" of Europe. The maps follow modern nation-state borders, lump Finland and the Baltic states in with their neighbours without explanation, and use fonts that seems more suited to a high-school project than an encyclopedia (using, for example, Д as A, and Σ as E), without adding much to the articles. I don't want to put the creator off making helpful diagrams in future, but if it is to be restored I would suggest that these "cultural spheres" are backed up with reliable sources on the Commons file page, the typography toned down, the file be made as a vector image (.svg) and "Islandia" (should be Iceland) corrected. ‑‑YodinT 18:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Dates of late antiquity
Start and end dates for a period of history are always a problem, and they serve to expose how artificial periodization really is. But late antiquity is often regarded (by its specialists, anyway) as broader than the dates given here. Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, one of the most extensive sources out there, covers roughly 250 to 800 (!), and a review for the same book states that that range is "an expansion over the older orthodoxy of ca. AD 250–640, and reflects current thinking, especially as to the upper limit." More recently, The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity uses a cutoff date of 700 and includes a chapter on "Early Islam as a Late Antique Religion". Late-antiquity specialists seem to treat the transition to Islam as a major element of the period.
I know sources on late antiquity don't always run as far as the Islamic conquest; Egypt post-Justinian is often labeled "Byzantine", so I assume that's also true of other provinces of the eastern empire. This article should probably explain the variety of end dates. A. Parrot (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)