Classical antiquity

These are mostly non-specific terms. "Ancient" is used mainly to refer to larger areas that are old, especially when the civilization in question was organized differently in the past from today, as in Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Israel. It usually is used when the ancient name for the area is the same as the modern English name. There really is no specific time period that "ancient" refers to, just that it's pretty old and was in a different system back then, in order to separate it from the modern entity of the same name. "Classical" refers to the Greek and Roman sphere. Anything to do with ancient Greece and Rome, basically between maybe 500 BC and 300 AD. "Antiquity" can have a couple meanings. When used referring to a time (as in "in antiquity") it really just means "in the past". Usually referring to the same time periods as "ancient". An antiquity is an artifact of an ancient period. In academia, time periods are referred to by their names, for the sake of accuracy and precision. Rather than talking about Ancient Israel, we might talk about the Iron Age IIa (roughly 1000-925 BC), which is a different time period than the Iron Age IIb-c (925-586 bc), because the culture and organization was very different in those times. Similarly, when dealing with the Classical periods, a scholar might refer to the Severan period of Roman emperors, the Late Roman, etc. The three terms you are describing are very general, and are used in a wide variety of situations by scholars. More on reddit.com

The convention is 8th BC to 5th AD More on reddit.com

Most historians, I think, try to avoid saying "classical" without a further qualifier -- at least I do, as someone who works with (pre-)Classical Greece, and that's really to avoid privileging Greco-Roman culture at the expense of any other culture. So I'd never say "Classical" this or that without specifying a region or culture: classical Greek art, classical Persian poetry, classical Chinese literature, etc.: if I didn't use the ethnic name, it would just be a rather silly effort to pretend that my culture of choice was the only one that mattered. Within any given culture's history, the exact meaning of "classical" will vary depending on how specific you're being. Rather like with classical Western music: in a broad sense classical music means "any music performed by an orchestra or chamber group or instruments typical of such groups", without any particular dates implied; but if you're being a bit more technical you'll use "classical" to mean "western European art music from the period 1750 to 1825". Similarly, "classical Greece" in a general sense can mean "Greece from ca. 1000 BCE to 500 CE or thereabouts", which would be extremely inclusive; but when people who actually work on ancient Greece say "Classical Period", they're usually using it in a more specific sense, referring to the period from ca. 480 BCE to 323 BCE, which bears that name because it's a convenient pigeonhole for modern historians to use. So in the case of "classical" Greece, we have an Archaic Period (776-480 BCE), Classical (480-323), Hellenistic (323-146), Roman (146 BCE onwards), and maybe other delimiters depending on context. It's perfectly find to use terms like this in a general sense sometimes, more specifically at other times. Context will almost always make it clear which is which. As another example: if I'm talking about "epic", I might use it in a general sense (any long or grandiose narrative) or in a technical sense (a specific genre of poetry, using dactylic hexameter or iambic pentameter rhythm, and informed by a tradition extending from Homeric poetry onwards). Or "lyric", which may be very general (poetry of a generally pretty, thoughtful, or introspective character), semi-specific (ancient Greco-Roman poetry other than epic and drama), or very specific (early Greek poetry designed to be performed by a soloist to the accompaniment of a lyre, using Aeolic rhythms). Again, context will normally make things clear. More on reddit.com

An important thing to remember about any historical era, like the classical, renaissance, early modern, modern, medieval etc, is that there are often no hard or sharp distinctions between them. People did not wake up one day and check their calendars and see that the classical era was over and that they were medieval now. Rather, these are terms historians created after the fact to construct an overall framework to signal general large changes. As such, they are more useful for understanding how we think about these time periods as opposed to what actually happened or how people thought. So why do we differentiate between the Middle Ages and the classical period? Part of the answer to this question is that for a long time there was a linear teleological concept of history. In simpler terms, historians believed that history and civilization was constantly moving towards “progress” and science away from barbarism and the “irrational”. The fall of Rome caused a big problem for this viewpoint, as Rome was seen as the next step in a line of “progress” from the Greeks. The fall of Rome and the onset of the Middle Ages interrupted “progress” and was seen as a step backward. Thus, a distinction was made between the “progress” of the Romans and the perceived lack of progress during the middle ages. This view of the middle ages as its own distinct era was reinforced by enlightenment and renaissance thinking. The men of these periods saw themselves as reaching back and rediscovering the ideas and values of the ancients, and cast the time in between them and the Greeks and Romans as backwards and barbaric. They even went so far as to invent medieval practices to set themselves apart. For example, the idea of Prima Nocta, or the right of a lord to have intercourse with a woman before her wedding night, never actually happened during the middle ages. We have no records of this ever being an institutionalized practice. Instead, all the records and mentions of it we have all appear in enlightenment era writings. (This may not be true in its entirety and the debate is not settled from an academic standpoint. Thank you u/TangosWithNapalm ). This is not to say that the distinction between the classical and the medieval are not still useful, and there were certainly many changes around the 4th and 5th centuries that would cause us to take note of particular changes during this time. However, these changes are not as “sharp” as you might expect. For example, Rome fell during the 4th and 5th centuries, although historians still debate the exact date of this event. Despite Rome’s collapse, many people in the early middle ages still used and considered themselves to be roman. For example, in Gregory of Tour’s History of the Franks he refers to many people in the 5th and 6th century as being of a senatorial class, even though medieval Gaul at this time was under the control of the Franks and no longer under Roman rule. In addition, many chronicles, such as John of Biclaro’s chronicle and the chronicle of 754, still refer to the Byzantine Emperor as the emperor of the romans. This indicates that for people of this time Rome, or at least something roman, was alive in the east. TLDR: There certainly are distinctions and changes between the classical and medieval eras, but they are not as sharp as the change in era might make them first appear. More on reddit.com