Draft talk:Periodisation of Roman civilisation

Scope: two questions

Shouldn't this be Modern historiography of ancient Rome?

Is the definition of "modern" going to be a battleground? Cynwolfe (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Good questions.

Re ancient Rome: ultimately, the content can drive it as a new article if need be. I thought Rome as an entity was best because there is consensus today it was one thing (Beard and Kaldellis for example explicitly say Rome lasted until the fall of Constantinople) but there isn’t consensus that it was the same (Beard says just in name). Which is the actual opinion that’s interesting. Further, you can’t discuss ancient Rome without discussing the Roman Empire and you can’t discuss the Empire without discussing the Byzantine Empire so putting it in one place makes more sense.

Regarding modern: there is already a page looking at classical secondary sources at Roman historiography. That’s why I started it with Gibbon as the definition of when modern study started which is referenced to Beard for now. Biz (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these things is exactly what I'm saying.

As far as I know, Rome still exists as a city in Italy, and histories have been written about it outside the period covered by the term "ancient Rome" no matter how expansively one defines it. Does the title adequately convey the topic? The first sentence does define the scope of "Rome" as ancient.

(In my opinion, Roman historiography is incorrectly named for the same reason that it doesn't limit the topic by name to ancient historians. There was once a fashion for titling articles with the utmost minimalism even at the cost of precision or clarity, and perhaps there still is. If no battles have occurred there, my concerns may be unfounded.)

The first paragraph also needs a sentence defining "modern" and "modern historiography". I'm assuming this article will accept the epochal definition at Modern era, but the parameters need to be stated, and that article linked to. Good luck with this. Cynwolfe (talk) Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I haven't had my coco pops yet.

Rome (state) versus (Rome city) is one distinction. Rome (state) is just what the scholars I've seen use, I agree its confusing. Its intended to be modern historians (aka post Gibbon) for the entire period that was Roman civilization (ie, Classical and post classical).

However, your question is if there is a debate about Ancient Rome and does this title cover it? My response is this it's a sub-set of a broader debate. The bigger debate is where does Western civilization originate from. The are two reasons why historians are modifying the definition: one is to romanticise the best bits (aka Beard moving it to 212 before the fireworks start for example) and the other is to shape a certain narrative of how the West originated (ie, Charlemagne reviving the west, which has continuity with Ancient Rome but as it was in competition with the East its been denied the same continuity -- and which France and Germany derive their origin). The West, as we know it, really developed its civilization in the 18th century (and related the East, as a necessary contrast needed for the Enlightenment) and Kaldellis's argument is Roman law, Greek texts, and Christianity (the good bits) that underpin the West originate not from Ancient Rome but the New Rome that Diocletion founded (but which has origins with the landmark in 212). In other words, Ancient Rome's periodisation cannot sit in isolation to why we call it the Byzantine Empire as they are almost other sides of the same coin.

Does that answer your question? If not, what should the title be?

Thanks for the other feedback will incorporate this. Biz (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As titled, this article includes the historiography of eg medieval Rome, the Papal States, renaissance Rome, Rome as capital of Italy, the Vatican City, Mussolini's Rome and post-war Rome. Rome's history and thus the historiography of Rome extends to the present day (see eg Rome#History). If you're averse to using the term "ancient Rome", how else are you going to make a limited scope clear - or do you wish to include Rome to the present day? NebY (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I'm using the term as latest scholarship does which is Rome (state) not Rome (city). Both Beard and Kaldellis use the term. As I know you have Mary Beard's SPQR handy you can verify, which she distinguishes. Pages 529, 533. She ends it in 1453.

The term "ancient Rome" is only part of the study of Rome (state). Yes, the City of Rome is outside of the state after the 8th century so it gets confusing. But again, this is what the scholars use not me.

What do you suggest as a better title? Biz (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So you need to clarify in the title that you're referring to the "state" of Rome - though calling it a state is counter to Weber's definition, so best avoided. I don't have a suggestion now for how you can dig this out of its hole, except to suggest you look to works which "study [] historical interpretations developed during the late modern era" ie works about modern historiography, rather than those works of historiography currently cited. I would expect you have such to hand, as they're required anyway to satisfy the WP:GNG conditions establishing that your topic is suitable for a stand-alone article. NebY (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I will look more into this thanks.

Fwiw there is this review of Beards book and he uses the term Rome https://www.jstor.org/stable/26650752

It appeared in the journal for History and Theory which “is the premier international journal in the field of theory and philosophy of history. Founded in 1960, publishes articles, review essays, and summaries of books principally in these areas: critical philosophy of history, cause, explanation, interpretation, objectivity; speculative philosophy of history, comparative and global history; historiography, theoretical dimensions of historians' debates; history of historiography, theory and practice of past historians and philosophers of history; historical methodology, examination of texts and other evidence, narrativism, stylistics;…” Biz (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What Mary Beard is doing is distinguishing between two usages of "(ancient) Rome", the physical city of Rome in antiquity and ancient Rome as the state or civilizational entity. That's to avoid saying "ancient" over and over again when your book (or encyclopedia article) is about antiquity. In the context of an encyclopedia, what you're saying, Biz, is that you want to distinguish between "ancient Rome" the city and "ancient Rome" the political behemoth (the latter of which is to be the topic of the article), thereafter to be referred to within the article as "Rome" for short without the "ancient". But the article title and first sentence should specify "ancient." I don't think you're understanding what NebY and I are saying in the context of WP:TITLE and specifically WP:PRECISION. As far as I'm concerned, using "ancient Rome" in the title will be sufficient to indicate that you're talking about the state behemoth—but not exclusively, surely, because Roma originally was more or less just an oppidum and most histories of Rome start with that if they don't limit the book to a particular period of Roman history. Doing so will not occasion surprise, as the city/state ambiguity is always rocky ground in ancient Roman topics.

Also, while I guess we all love Mary Beard, she isn't the be-all, end-all of classical scholars just because she's in popular media all the time—she's there because she has an engaging personality, but that tends to draw her toward popularizing work that some have politely implied has dinged her scholarly cred a bit. Invoking Mary Beard does not end a discussion nor guarantee consensus. And you're kinda trying to reinvent the wheel here. Just call it Modern historiography of ancient Rome and be done with it. It's a bit like "Ancient Greece," an entity that didn't actually exist. It's just a conventional way to refer to this "civilization," to use the old-fashioned word as I am wont to do, albeit with scare quotes. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok a few things here. Appreciate the stylistic pointers just want to address the issue of substance first which shapes it. Let me tease this out so we can be specific on the issue we need to resolve

1. Beard is not doing that. She specifically calls until 1453 “Rome” and the first thousand years her history of ancient Rome but which is different in the second thousand years. Shes does not call the second millennium ancient Rome. UPDATE: I’m rereading SPQR and I now see how you think that. It appears that way in the prologue but it’s clear in the epilogue what I’ve said. Might be more useful we if cite pages to get alignment.
2. Ancient Rome is not the same as whatever it is we call Roman civilization until 1453. I do not think there is anyone saying the Byzantine Empire is ancient Rome. But if ancient Rome is the term to use for all of Roman civilization until 1453 then I stand corrected. If ancient Rome is being used for Roman civilization until the 5th century, then this is part of the scope of this article and we need another term scholars use for whatever continues until 1453 which Byzantine is simply a subset of. As this is looking at how and why historians slice and dice history, it’s important to not use the terms that they invented to define it.
3. Other sources. Completely agree! Right now this article only touches on Gibbon, late antiquity and is influenced by Beard and Kaldellis as the most recent scholarship I’ve come across. This is not enough. But it’s also not a bad start. Definitely would like to go deeper on each of the historians who touch on this topic. I see this article a multil-month research.

It seems like we need to get more evidence of people using the term Rome or another term to represent the broader civilization that was a continuous state behind it (which is not to say the state had the same substance as before). If we do as you suggest, it’s scoping down the topic which is not appropriate because as this is not an article about the histories of these periods but about how history is being constructed. Biz (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At present, this is the beginnings of an article about the modern periodisation of "Rome", rather than the modern historiography of "Rome", a massive subject. How many scholars have written books or articles about aspects of "Rome" in this century alone, in English, German and Italian alone? A survey of them all is a mammoth undertaking, but as it stands, this article doesn't live up to its title nor the "historical interpretations" scope of the first sentence; it's a partial draft. I suggest doing two things:

• Draftify it - move it to Draft:Modern historiography of Rome, and
• At WT:CGR (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome), open a discussion or invite participation here. It's an active forum which is outstanding for collaborative, constructive discussion from many perspectives and considerable expertise.

NebY (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah! NebY may have landed on what the real issue is. I thought that by beginning with Gibbon, you were going to write about historiographical approaches (for example, the prosopographical approach to the Roman Republic by Ronald Syme et al. in the first half of the 20th century) to the history of ancient Rome, or "decline and fall" narratives, or schools of historical thought as they apply to Roman history, which might be organized in various ways to avoid the immensity of merely surveying who says what about Rome, an undertaking from which NebY is right to recoil. If you are wanting an article on periodization of Roman history, ancient and medieval (through 1453?), that's a whole other animal that may or may not be useful or needed, given the existence of History of Rome, which seems quite obsessed with periodization. Discussion might belong on that talk page, not in an article space. I agree that it's premature to have started a public article when it remains a challenge to state in a single sentence what the article topic even is. NebY has offered good advice here about how to start. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree that’s what should be done.

I’ll move this to a draft and post to the forum, once I work out how do that in the coming days. Biz (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And reflecting on this, maybe the article should be called the more neutral and specific: “Periodisation of Roman civilization” Biz (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This strikes me as a good outcome. I think it is worth doing and will also allow History of Rome and other articles to be less obsessed with the details of periodisation - they'll be able to make brief comments and direct readers here for a full and authoritative discussion. Furius (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

More terms

I've come across periodisations including "First Roman Kingdom", "Second Roman Kingdom", "Archaic Rome", "Early Roman Republic", "Middle Roman Republic", "Late Roman Republic", "High Roman Empire", "Low Roman Empire" and Roman imperial period. ★Trekker (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Adding these to my radar. The mystery I've had of who influenced the consensus that the final "split" is 395 is now answered thanks to the German wikipedia (Dietmar Kienast), with many more questions now. Biz (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)