Talk:Greco-Roman world

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece: Byzantine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the culture of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I suppose that the term is chronological, like "Late Helladic," and is not justly subsumed under the article "Classical Antiquity" which in its present condition sounds awfully like a precis of the nachleben of classical antiquity. (Plutarch by Amyot or North is a Renaissance artifact; the Greek text is genuinely a staggering example of the fecundity of classical antiquity). If there is merit to the expanded information, and after the the dates have been given a second check, my suggestion is that it stand apart from the other. B.Ballon, who submitted the text, 31 October 2005

The only reason I can think of to not merge this with Classical antiquity would be if it might cause problems for disambiguation involving Greco-Roman wrestling. I don't think it would be that much of a problem tho. Caerwine 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, 'Graeco-Roman' does not equate to 'Classical Antiquity'. The former is ethnic-specific, or at the least language-specific. The latter is more inclusive of the entire range of authors, ideas, and cultures that it is intended to represent from the Mediterranean region. (Anonymous)

The incorporation of "Greco-Roman" (an adjective form) would not limit "Classical Antiquity" in any way. Punic, Etruscan and Iberian contributions to the mainstream culture of Antiquity would not be affected. --Wetman 16:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous is right, according to my sources the Graeco-Roman period begins in mid-2nd century BC with the Roman occupation of Greece and ends with the rise of the Byzantine Empire. Basically 'Greco-Roman' refers to the civilization of the Roman Republic and Empire after its political "unity" with Greece. Greek civilization prior to Hellenistic and Classical times is never referred as Greco-Roman. Unless the author of this article provides some sources, I'll be forced to regard it as POV and make a complete rewrite. Miskin 09:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greco Romanism did not begin in 146BC, with the Roman occupation of Greece, I find it exceedingly annoying that I need to give examples of Roman poetry, literature, sculpture, architecture and theatre, (which before the 1st century AD was simply copy of Greek) and so on influenced by Greece, these are obvious to anyone with even basic understanding of classical history.

While they relate to eachother, they are not synonymous. The Greco-Roman section ought to be expanded, and at its height, it would have too much information to be merged. At the moment, it might work, but for simplicity, just help to expand Greco-Roman.-Hairchrm 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the tags. As per above there is at the very least doubt that the two terms are synonymous. Luwilt (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case this article needs some serious tlc from an expert. It reads like it was written by someone with a very shallow understanding of the classical world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B11B:3C25:F908:9B2:805:6915 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a historian but I have seen the term Greco-Roman used as an alternative to Byzantine. In a literal sense, of course, Greco-Roman is actually a better term than Byzantine since the term Byzantine was a made-up word invented long after the the fall of the Empire and Greco-Roman actually refers to what the empire was, the Greak-speaking portion of the empire than survived the Germanic invasions.

Is it really universally accepted that the term does not refer to the post-fall-of-Rome period of the Empire? --Mcorazao 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

to source it, please do so, in the body of the article, before you add it to the lede. And can't just say this in the lede if you find 1 source, if, a disproportionate number of other sources disagree.

Please note that the

Classical Antiquity with the understanding that the periods are at least nearly coincident (i.e., doesn't include the Byzantine perio) --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

74.250.14.193 (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the citation of a supposed work by Theresa Ferguson, entitled My Big Book of Things What I Have Dug Up and That and published by Nottingham University Press in 2009). I don't believe this book exists, as I can find no trace of it on any site other than wp or clones thereof. Curiously, this reference was added by a single-shot anonymous editor, 86.153.24.159, on 31 March 2009. Just in time for April 1st. AdeMiami (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this would be the best solution.

talk

) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (CET)

I've removed

Can this article's name be changed to simply 'Greco-Roman'? 'Greco-Roman world' does not lend itself/allow for linkages and/or use in other articles.--LJA123 (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. Arminden (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a serious mistake to discuss a historical topic w/o indicating a time frame. This touches on the discussion above at "Byzantine", but is wider, as both the beginning and the end must be discussed, certainly with varying positions on both. Arminden (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]