Talk:Ancient Greece

§Empires, kingdoms and regions

Every time I look at this article, I question what the section on §Empires, kingdoms and regions adds to this article. It's a pretty random collection of polities (despite the name, there are no "regions" included) with no clear inclusion criteria, listing some very minor kingdoms which have no place in a wikipedia article on a topic as broad as ancient Greece (Dayuan, seriously?); including some weird overlaps (the kingdom of Macedon is listed as lasting until 146 BC, but the Antigonid dynasty, who ruled Macedon for the last part of that, is listed separately); and having strange omissions (why is the Delian League listed but the Peloponnesian League not?

Really, the major players should be (and in many cases already are!) discussed in §History, §Geography, and §Politics and society. Given that this entire section is completely uncited, I would suggest getting rid of the entire §Empires, kingdoms and regions section and its 14 variably helpful maps. This frees up 1500 words which would be much better spent on virtually anything else – we currently have fewer than 150 words on the legacy of ancient Greece(!), even less on the economy, barely a mention of Greek pottery or vase-painting, and only a single mention of women in the entire text. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public:, WP:BEBOLD. I agree, and I have done so.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"... led by three hundred Spartans..." links to the movie...?

Does that link really need to be there? It honestly seems comedic. 12.175.28.210 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be there, and I have removed it as unhelpful. Thanks for pointing it out Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Confused scope

This page appears to miss the plot in ascribing the timeline of "ancient Greece" as continuing up until 600AD. That's not ancient anything. It's past classical and late antiquity and well on into the Middle Ages, which start in the late 5th century. In the Timeline of Ancient Greece, the timeline stops at the Battle of Corinth (146 BC), which saw the defeat of the Greek city states by the Roman republic and thus ushered in the Greco-Roman period. Other sources draw the line of ancient Greece even earlier, Britannia at 323BCE, with the death of Alexander. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried to read the article? Not sure why you're confused. This is part of Ancient history. "Ancient Greece" continues until "Medieval Greece". There are many sub-periods - the major ones being Archaic Greece, Classical Greece, Hellenistic Greece and Roman Greece. 323 BCE is the customary date for the end of "Classical Greece", and the beginning of "Hellenistic Greece". 146 BCE is simply another customary transition date, from Macedonian-occupied Greece to Roman-occupied Greece. They're all still "Ancient Greece". I have no idea why the Wikipedia's timeline article stops at 146 BCE. My guess it is editor got exhausted, lost interest or decided the subsequent events timeline is already contained in the Roman timeline, so wasn't worth replicating. The only question is the transition from "Roman Greece" (Ancient) to "Byzantine Greece" (Medieval). Some date it as early as c.500 CE some as late as c.600 CE, it really depends on how you think of Justinian. While some historians think of him as the "first Byzantine", others see him as the "last Ancient", and prefer Heraclius as the "first Byzantine". c.600 is an approximate date that is closer to the latter interpretation. But you can think of the entire 6th Century as a transition period. Walrasiad (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece covers this. The timeline/Britannica are the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"It's past classical and late antiquity and well on into the Middle Ages, which start in the late 5th century." What are you talking about? The article on late antiquity specifies that the period lasts until "the early Muslim conquests (622–750)", and "the establishment of the later 7th century Umayyad Caliphate, generally marks the end of late antiquity." The 5th, 6th, and 7th category are all part of late antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

Under subtitle "Hellenistic Greece," the first sentence should be changed from "The period from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 until the death of Cleopatra..." to "The period from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC until the death of Cleopatra..." Jconn071 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Subjective language

I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s culture but the following language in the Classical Greece sub-section of History seems weirdly unencyclopic, “Though heavily outnumbered, the Athenians—supported by their Plataean allies—defeated the Persian hordes at the Battle of Marathon, and the Persian fleet turned tail.”

Is referring to Persian belligerents as a “horde” or saying they “turned tail” a neutral way to relate 2,500 year old history? 173.89.37.127 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. Please change it. Wolfdog (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

c. (circa) in SD

So, Wikipedia:Short description actually mentions c.: "Where a date is not known exactly, "c." may be used for "circa"."

That said, it also says all this stuff:

• "concise explanation of the scope of the page" I see c. taking away from "concise"
• "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article" I see c. as taking away from "very brief"
• "short descriptions are meant to distinguish an article from similarly named articles in search results, and not to define the subject." I'm not sure how adding c. helps distinguish this article from others as everyone knows it isn't exactly 1200 to 600 BC as those are clearly rounded numbers. IMHO, c. is obviously needed in the article but not so obviously in the SD.
• "no longer than is needed to fulfill its functions effectively" and, again IMHO, c. adds more length than needed.

The SD page says if the exact date is not known, c. "may", not "must", be used. I think if there was an article out there that c. helps disambiguate this one from that, then I can support c. in the SD. So, while c. may be used, I think it isn't helpful or needed in this case. Masterhatch (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging related parties: @Alexandros17, @Eric Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 04:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a much bigger problem here in that only the lead talks about the 1200 date, and that in the context of the pretty old fashioned idea of the Greek Dark Ages- the actual article only covers Greece from a notional start of the Achaic period 800 BC onwards. So the lead and SD needs a rewrite to align with the article content, or more discussion of Post Palatial and early Iron Age Greece added to the article to justify the inclusion of a 1200 BC date.

I think the later makes more sense, but equally is a lot more work! Golikom (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I guess I should've linked to the conversation that got all this started: User talk:Alexandros17#September 2024. Masterhatch (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Masterhatch Thanks Alexandros17 (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems both this article and Timeline of ancient Greece put the end date as the absorption into the Roman empire in 146 BC. Maybe we could go with something like Greek civilization prior to 1st century BC? Eric ^talk 12:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)