Talk:Archaic Greece

message: "(“Greece” a small state part of vast Persian Empire.)"
I removed the above statement from the beginning of the article. Aside from Macedonia's temporary tenure as a satrap during the Greco-Persian Wars, Greece was never part of the Persian Empire in any of its forms. Spartan198 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Removed 

message: Material removed, as it seems to be a copyeight violation from here. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I partially redesigned it as I thought it could use it. The problem is how to deal with two long, thin items, the TOC and history box. So as not to confuse us with the art box I moved IT to the left. By the time the article gets filled out these will not seem so jammed together. I filled out the intro based on a few leading lights keeping one well-written para that was there. I'm going on now but I can work on one section at a time sporadically.Dave (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial redesign

message: The French article covers society only. I suggest we not put it in translated as is but translate and cannibalize it for an initial section "Archaic society" to replace "8th century revolution." That way, we can say something about archaic art. If we condense, not that much really, has to be said about archaic society and the use of links can offload many topics. Someone has to look for them though.Dave (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More later. I looked at the translation info and the French article and I think the bottom line is, no one wants to translate it because it is a bad article. It is unreferenced and usually unreferenced articles, not having been checked, aren't as good quality as they might be. Just because an article is in the French Wikipedia does not make it good. So I am going to do what everyone else does and totally ignore the French article. Where would it go now that we have started an English article? Maybe I don't understand such requests. Someone says he started it but I will be hanged if I can find it. It's not a good idea because then we would have to maintain the article in French. In other words, only bilinguals or the French could work on it. I vote to turn down the request and boot it out of the article. Don't even think about considering it. If we are going to do that I recommend we maintain the Hungarian one instead; that way we can avoid the endless quibbling between Wikipedia editors, because no one will be to work on it except Hungarians.Dave (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation request

message: The creation of the hoplite phalanx, the "hoplite reform", Greek colonisation of the Black Sea and Italy, land pressure in Greece, the introduction of coinage, Sparta and the Lykourgan reform, the rise of Dionysos, Orphism and other mystery religions, Pythagoras, Drakon, Solon, the relief of debt bondage and the eclipse of the aristocracy, Sappho. Any other suggestions? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some topics that might be included

message: Hello Wetman. I've been on vacation from this article but I am returning eventually. Meanwhile I happened to see your edits on conurbation. Well, I can see why you chose the topic. I said the kings disappeared, but they didn't disappear. However, something was different about the kingships after the end of the dark age. You seem to be trying to put your finger on what was different. To be honest I don't think you managed to do that. I can't see it! How are classical kingships different from pre-classical ones?
However, first things first. I planned a series of topical subsections, the first being conurbation, the great ingathering of the new populations. The term belongs to Snodgrass. A second would have been government, but how were you to know that? There are additional discrete topics characterizing the archaic period. So, I don't believe kingship goes under conurbation and it looks out of place there. We need another subsection on political changes associated with the archaic period. Tyranny obviously will play a large part.
The point I was trying to make is that in Mycenaean times the rule of the king, represented by the word wanaka, was given by the gods, according to the first book of the Iliad. You remember good old Thersites and Agamemnon getting his authority from Zeus on high? If anyone such as Achilles questions that authority the whole fabric of society falls apart and insubordination spreads down through the ranks. There are many assemblies in the Iliad but no voting and officials play no part but to implement the will of the king.
In the archaic period many kingships were restored or went on; however, the name had changed. The basileus in the tablets had been a minor official but now he was the king. The wanaka was gone. The kings in fact were no longer independent ruling with authority on high. They were magistrates and they shared power with other magistrates. In Sparta we find kings being appointed by committees of magistrates. Our name for that is republic. Greece went from a collection of absolute monarchies to republics even though kings persisted. In fact at Athens the chief magistrates came from the office of the king and shared out his kingly powers and the same is true of most of the other poleis, the kings vanished in a collection of magistrates. That happened at Rome too. Limited morarchy developed from absolute monarchy and those limitations grew as powers were divided. As you pointed out, in the Hellenistic period they were all taken back again by single powerful individuals.
I see from past experiences with you that my changing your stuff seems to anger you. So, as I am not back on this article yet and therefore am not seeking to improve it again yet, I would ask you to do a little more work instead of you complaining about my changes. Put your monarchical material in a different subsection away from conurbation. As this article is about the features that characterize the archaic period and led to its being called that, could you clarify what your author thinks is different about the kingships of the archaic period? What's new about them? I presume we are both trying to improve the articles so there is no reason why you should not try to improve this one.
And finally, for the matriarchal succession at Sparta. What succession is that? I don't see very many queens in there and no queens at all were trained as military leaders or underwent the male Spartan military regimen. I think the author may be referring to a more complex situation - a matrilineal situation. From what you say it is hard for me to see what is meant here. The historians say that Spartan kings passed on their kingships to their sons. Futhermore there was no break in the patronymic naming system. More importantly, I do not see what all that has to do with the archaic period. Are we to view that as an archaic innovation or feature?
So those are the issues, clarity and relevance. Why don't you pleasantly surprise me and make it all relevant and clear? You've been an editor here for a long time so I presume you are putting the article first and not some sort of personal or territorial vendetta because someone actually dared to alter your stuff. Thanks.Dave (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conurbation and kings

message: :Any additional comments:
fair enough. But note how Hellenistic Greece isn't equal to Hellenistic period. There may be a slight difference here too, but that's probably splitting hairs.  --dab (𒁳) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, "archaic period" is only used in reference to Greece. Now, perhaps you're thinking about Greek colonies outside of Greece proper, but I would think those can be included under the term "Greece". Srnec (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wrong according to our dab page.  I think this move was a very bad idea for the reasons stated above. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: moved from article

:The Expansion requests section added above by User:Dbachmann in an unsigned edit on 03:59, 10 December 2009 shold not include an  template, which is not suitable for this page as it has no translated text from the French talk page.  As this alters the page to add inappropriate categories, I've edited the original text above to enclose the template in <nowiki> tags. (Suspect greek template should be removed, too.) Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion requests

message: I added a lot of things to this article but reading it over I don't think all of them should stay. I definetley feel good about the crisis/consolidation stuff but the Persian Wars summary is not great. If anyone has a different idea for that, be my guest. Heilingetorix (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Expansion

message: After performing a copyedit (any comments or feedback are always welcome- if anyone is wondering why I moved the article to Oxford English, it is because I felt that it was the most commonly form of English used in the article already, and I wanted to make the fewest changes in that regard), I noticed a few things that caught my attention. One of these is the section "Reaction 3: Reorganisation and consolidation of Athens". The section itself has two paragraphs, yet only the first deals with Athens, while the second deals with Greece as a whole and the political changes to it during the end of the Archaic period. I feel that it should be moved elsewhere. Also, I am hesitant about the naming of the titles starting with "reaction", and wonder if some better titles could be used for those sections. Finally, the art section (well, the whole article in general) could use some expansion, and the architecture part could use a brief overview in this article to complement the link to the main article. --Slon02 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points all.  I've been watching your efforts today, and everything looks fine to me.  Those "Expansion: ..." bits are trying to sum up very quickly (I didn't split that infinitive for you, copyeditor) the key points one runs into in a basic history of the development of the polis: much work needs to be done there and elsewhere (as you note).  Thank you so much for your time and attention!  The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments