Talk:History of Greece

message: If this article became COTW, would it be an overview of the entire history of Greece or a certain time period? Mred64 16:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
: my guess, all of the history :D dig out your history books, notify the trolls, let the POV pushing begin :D Project2501a 18:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun! Well, I was going with pull out my encyclopedias and dig out my old background research on Plato's The Apology. But that would work too if I have stuff. Mred64 04:05, Jun 20, 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd make a good start to this 
Bold textarticle by making it in tlm
he model of the series template. I copied text for each of the main subarticles here. It should serve as a good template for the future. --Dmcdevit 04:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The History of Greece series begins with Aegean civilization, when one would expect it to begin with Minoan civilization.  The former article does not distinguish between the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations.  Is there some reason for keeping the link to the Aegean civ. article?  --RJC Talk 6 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
The article also makes no mention of the Cycladic Civlization. Skyduster 01:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aegean civilization

message: None of the two are mentioned for some reason.
: Echoing that sentiment Although the Greek Civil War is in wikipedia. JoshNarins (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil War (1946-1949) and Eleftherios Venizelos (1864-1936)

message: I'm involved in some trans from the French wiki; and there are starting to be some conflicts in that the french have a different chronology for the periods (their Archaic = everything pre-6th century BCE, Classical = 510 to 323BCE, & Hellenistic appears to last right to 25AD.
Additionally, a lot of our articles which are entitled '(subject in) Ancient Greece' really deal with all of Greek antiquity rather than just 776-323. For the Fr, not a prob - the article titles are '..Greek Antiquity', their periods are Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic
But, to reiterate, ours are '...Ancient Greece', of which the Ancient period is but a subset. 
Two issues then: 
# Should all of such articles be renamed to 'xxx in Greek Antiquity' or alternatively broken down into an article for each period (not practicable or worthwhile in many cases)
# When translating, should we be paying particular attention to the disjoint in period dates between the two schools, and does that mean we may need to go back and fact-check previous translations from the French (and possibly other langs - I'm not familiar with the historiography though I intend to start reading up on it now) (i.e. when they say "at the beginning of the classical period" that should translate to "in the middle of the Ancient period" - I think the answer for this one is 'YES'.Bridesmill 16:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced English usage is as clearcut as you make out. I suppose "Ancient Greece" in a looser sense may also refer to the lot. But your suggestion sounds reasonable. dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates, periods, conflicting historiographies

message: I just had to clean out stuff on "80000 BC Greeks". What gives? dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: is nobody watching this article?

message: Why do you use the coat of arms of the Greek Army in this article? 62.103.124.3 09:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not of the army only, it's of greece in general. --fs 22:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why that image

message: During the Ottoman occupation, many parts of Greece were -at times- controled by the Venetians or Genoese, and not by the Ottomans (such as Corfu, Crete, Nafplio, etc), and the Rennaissance and Enlightenment flourished in these areas (as is evident in their local architectures), adding tremendous momentum to the Greek Revolution of 1821.  The Republic of Venice has especially left a mark on many areas of Greece.  The article should include these major points of Greek history.  I will come up with references and add these into the article. Skyduster 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rennaissance and Enlightenment

message: 1- The article claims Greek majority in Izmir, not the whole of Asia minor, so it is neutral.
2- Ethnicity of muslims (majority of them were Turks) exchanged in population exchange must be mentioned
--BlueEyedCat 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is a few lines and it hardly mentions anything remotely not neutral!Tourskin 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "World War I and the Greco-Turkish War" part is not neutral ?

message: The article lists H as a Dark Ages author (1200-800), but links to an article about someone born in 550.  Same person, wrong dates; or different person, wrong link?
Vico's G
i cant find anywhere the conquest greek ppl did against persian and reached to the borders of india. i believe that, that is one of the most important things about greek history  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.245.164 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hecataeus of Miletus' Dates 

message: hi im breanna im 13 and im doing a report on greece and i wanted to know if you knew how greece got its name thakyou!
bye  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.76.255 (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greeks call themselves the Hellenes, but we get our word from what the Romans called them.  They have been called Greeks (Crecas, Graeci, etc.) for so long that we no longer have records of when (or why) the name was given.  There is some speculation that the Greeks called themselves Graikoi before they called themselves Hellenes, so the Romans would just have continued to use that older word, but this still doesn't answer the question of why the Greeks used to call themselves Greek. RJC TalkContribs 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also check the very comprehensive Names of the Greeks article for more info. Constantine   ✍  15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  greece 

message: robert neal i'm doing a report on i'm coming there ,but want would i see there  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.116.47 (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  want can you tell me when i got there want will i see but this is a report 

message: I find it curious that all of the Post-Roman period history is about the Byzantine empire. It says almost nothing at all about what was happening in Greece proper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.254.38 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine Greece 

message: See reasons just given about Byzantine history (etc.)  The Neolithic section is inaccurate.  If farming came into Europe simultaneously via both the Balkans and Greece, where are the citations?  The oldest farming in Europe is in the Balkans/Romania/Ukraine by quite a bit, according to the archaeological texts I have in front of me (including Fagan).  Farming comes into Greece from the North, judging by the crops and their genetics.  None of the new research on domestication of plants in the Baltics and its spread into Greece is in this article.  At the same time, it's clear that the people we know as Greeks/Hellenes were seafaring people who could have gotten farming items elsewhere (than the Baltics).  However, that still doesn't change the fact that Greece engages in farming long after the folks in the Baltics.  Nor does it show conclusively that the crops in Greece had an exclusively overland route.  AFAIK, that is still being studied, jury is out.  Jared Diamond has an account of the arrival of the olive in Greece (originally domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean) and implies that it did not travel overland.  It may have been one of the earliest domesticates in Greece, imported from the eastern Med.  Shortly thereafter, IIRC, Diamond quotes research that places the domestication of the almond in Greece.  Sheep and goats arrive in Greece at some point (when?  needs to be researched and put in article, crucial to Greek history), and modern genetic analysis shows them to be descendants of goats and sheep from the Zagroz mountains, who show up in the Baltics earlier than in Greece.  So, it is not a simple situation, the Greek Neolithic and way more needs to be added.LeValley 08:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a lot of work 

message: I know there's a lot more detail on the specific period pages, but the transition between classical and hellenistic periods only mentions Alexander in passing (using the date of his death as a delineating date). Is there a reason his life isn't discussed to a greater degree in the main article? He was kind of the franchise for a while there...It discussed the aftermath of his death but nothing about his life or the expansions he wrought. Surely this is as notable as some of the minor battles that are mentioned in the classical section. Jbower47 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Alexander? 

message: Various problems that other users have mentioned (particularly regarding the Byzantine and Ottoman periods and Greek diaspora communities) would be better addressed if this entire series were renamed "Greek history" rather than "History of Greece" and treated appropriately. Greek-speaking people have lived and continue to live in areas far flung outside the Greek peninsula. A series titled "History of Greece" might misdirect the reader to think only of the current Greek state, which is covered by the article "History of Modern Greece" while also creating nonsensical geographic controversies and redundant articles (e.g. should "Ottoman Greece" only cover the history of Greeks living under Ottoman rule in the current area of Greece only and leave out other Greek communities outside this area?) A series titled "Greek history" might be criticized for some sort of Panhellenism but it is unavoidably, the easiest and more reasonable way to deal with this topic. Cf. also the series "Jewish history".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.119.173 (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Greece or Greek history? 

message: In addition to the problems discussed above, the lead section needs work. (Added tag to that effect, too.) The lead is ridiculously short, and so misses thousands of years of important Greek history. This is especially egregious considering that certain eras in Greek history had remarkable influence on Western culture.
— Molly-in-md (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead needs work, too

message: According to a radio program I heard on NPR, the economic crisis beginning in 2009 is only the latest in a line of multiple (4-5) economic crises Greece has suffered through in the modern, post-industrial, era. They have definitely been there, done that, when it comes to financial troubles. Given that, noting only the 2009 crisis seems incomplete. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics 

message: I have to agree with this. I don't have any references except that my wife is Greek and we talk with her family regularly.  They are in the North - so their perspective may be different from other Greeks.
The economic decline of Greece was happening way before 2009.  When Greek adopted the Euro and dropped the Drachma - there was a huge amount of inflation.  A loaf of bread used to cost 1000 drachma, but merchants inflated their prices when the euro came in - so that loaf of bread would be 7 euro.  Everything went up in price due to the currency conversion and never quite settled back to their original drachma equivilent.  Furthermore, items that were produced cheaply in Greece would be exported to the other EU countries - so there was a drastic rise in costs all over.  At the same time, Greece started to reign in their tax collection and applying more and more taxes and fees throughout.   Foreign ownership and foreign "big box" stores were allowed into Greece.  Smaller supermarkets were drowned out.  The Greek government saw all of this as a good thing - more money.  But it was on the backs of the common people.
Also with the adoption of the Euro, the Greek government lost their ability to debase their currency.  This was the single biggest factor behind the economic crisis.
Then there was the issue with the Olympics.  Greeks had expected the 2000 Olympics would automatically go to them.  When it went to Atlanta, there was a surge of nationalism over the issue (there were other factors too no doubt, but this was one of the main drivers).  Greek politicians had pretty much a "blank check" for bidding on the 2004 Olympics.   All of the reasons they thought they didn't get the 2000 Olympics had money thrown at it.  Greece was always a poor state, but the fiscal irresponsibility started in order to get the 2004 Olympics.  They upgraded the subway system in Athens, the airport, major highways - there was a ton of infrastructure spending.   Even outside Athens this was occurring.  Thessaloniki was modernized and transformed to the point of being unrecognizable between 2000 and 2005.  
The economic crisis that hit in 2008 simply took a debt riddled country and broke it.  The crisis got so bad that some cities had nearly half of their businesses close down.  So we now had a country that already saw a massive increase in the cost of living, and now their government was having issues and decided that austerity was the best way to fix it.  This is one of the main reasons for the surge of domestic terrorism and civic disobedience.   
But the economic crisis started long before 2009.  I would say it started in 2004 - after the Olympics.  Greece didn't make as much off the Olympics as they had hoped - and that was when the financial problems started appearing on the Greek news regularily.   Yesurbius (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Crisis had started earlier than 2009 

message: I am at a loss to understand how the Turkish forces could recapture Smyrna. In my understanding, recapture means "capture back" or "capture again". The Greeks took control of Smyrna from the Ottoman Empire in 1919, and unless the Turkish Republic is seen as a continuation of the OE, there is no way the Turkish forces could recapture anything. Or was the Turkish invasion of Cyprus half a century later also a "recapture"? I hope not. Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in terms of territorial sovereignty, the Turkish Republic very clearly was the successor to the Ottoman Empire. The literature routinely calls the event a "recapture". Do you really want to put us through the motions of having to cite all those sources for you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. I accept your explanation. Food for thought, actually - reconquista and all that. Thanks. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of recapture? 

message: sorry I am new to the wiki but i noticed that between sections like for example Mycenaean civilization and Early Iron Age at the end of Mycenaean and start of Early iron age both mention the dark ages why? it is harder to read and it is kind of important. Thanks for reading and i hope i didn't offend any one. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben the ballpoint pen (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  formating? 

message: "In about 2100 B.C, the Proto-Indo-Europeans overran the Greek peninsula from the north and east.[3]" based on Roebuck 1966 (!) Don't you have a still older source??? 93.199.29.140 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrival of Indo-Europeans 

message: Since I'm not an "established" user, I can't edit it myself.
This is what I'm thinking of:
"The Greek Civil War (Greek: Eμφύλιος πόλεμος Emfílios pólemos), was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Greek governmental and British forces. Funding for the government came from Britain and the U.S.[27] The insurgents the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts on the left, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country.[28] The victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to American funding through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan]] and to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War."
The first two sentences make it sound as if the government was fighting the British despite being funded by them. The third sentence has no verb. "West interference" should probably be "Western interference". There are two stray square brackets after "Marshall Plan".
This version (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Greece&oldid=600814564) looks more coherent, although it's missing some information:
"The Greek Civil War (Greek: Eμφύλιος πόλεμος Emfílios pólemos), was fought between 1944 and 1949 in Greece between the Governmental forces of Greece supported by the United Kingdom at first, and later by the USA, and the Democratic Army of Greece; the military branch of the Greek communist party. According to some analysts, it represented the first example of a post-war West interference in the political situation of a foreign country.[26] The victory of the British—and later US-supported government forces led to Greece's membership in NATO and helped to define the ideological balance of power in the Aegean for the entire Cold War."
OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the civil war is incoherent 

message: the greek worshiped certain gods
24.94.187.97 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015 

message: I can't edit this article, but I just wanted to point out that there is a broken link in the section for Hellenistic Greece.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaslug12345 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://genocidescholars.org/images/Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've raised a similar question in Ancient Greece too: I fail to see why Ancient Greece era begins after the Dark Ages, we have no reference about this. In genral Ancient Greece refers to Greek antiquity, similar to Ancient Egypt which includes pre-Dynastic Egypt too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning of Ancient Greece era

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://genocidescholars.org/images/Resolution_on_genocides_committed_by_the_Ottoman_Empire.pdf
*Added  tag to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/062/Ant0620234.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101104332/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this paragraph doesnt explain invasion/ migration of indo european greeks into neolithic non indo european greece, according to IE theory, the greeks should have invaded the neolithic culture of greece and pushed non indo europeans like minoans to the island of crete. This para needs elaboration. 202.188.53.210 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  neolithic section needs amendment/ inclusion of indo-european migration/ invasion info 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It's only my rough impression, but "BCE" seems more common in Wikipedia articles. Why is the convention "BC" used throughout this one? A motivation for asking is that BCE has been argued as less Christian-centric, hence more neutral, as it emphasizes the era as opposed to the religion's central messiah, Christ. 2603:7080:AF01:7E74:80F1:2091:115B:569 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ERA. The choice between these two conventions is a matter of editorial taste, and as such, subject to widely diverging preferences on the part of editors. Because that is so, and because there is no objective criterion for deciding that one of them is better than the other, our rule is that we leave articles as they are, using whichever of the two has been in place, to ensure stability rather than the pointless edit-warring that would otherwise be happening all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the follow-up. 2603:7080:AF01:7E74:5D10:23BA:CB69:C5B5 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC vs. BCE