Talk:Apollodorus of Damascus

did you know?

this article needs to be heavily added on to its Wikipedia's worst article in comparison to how important this topic is The Heakes (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Apollodorus a Syrian? How come?

Even the article's own references state that Apollodorus was a Greek born in Syria. Wikisource and the 11th edition of Britannica (from which this article heavily copies) state that

“ APOLLODORUS, of Damascus, a famous Greek architect ”

Finally, as it is mentioned below, Apollodorus comes from a very common ancient greek name, Απολλόδωρος [comes from the words Απόλλων (Apollo, the greek god) and δώρον (gift)].

If he was a Syrian, why was he named after a greek name? Moumouza (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Apollodorus of Damascus was a Roman architect born in Damascus (Syria). About the Greek origin the situation is unclear. He worked under Roman Emperor Trajan.

Every single source I turn to label Apollodorus as a "Greek". Everything you say beyond that is a POV, so please, don't revert again. Miskin 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is not a Greek. Use please the information source.

Sorry but I think you have a biased personal agenda on the subject, and the sources don't agree [1] Miskin 12:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nel 76-77 d.C. il padre del futuro imperatore, M. Ulpio Traiano, era stato governatore della Siria (legatus pro praetore Syriae), provincia in cui lo stesso Traiano aveva soggiornato nel 73-74 oppure nel 75-76, all'età di venti o ventidue anni, come tribunus legionis. E’ ben probabile quindi che il padre dell’architetto sia entrato nella clientela di Traiano padre, mentre questi era in Siria. Apollodoro dovrebbe essere nato intorno all'anno 60 d.C., e forse fu introdotto a Roma da Traiano già nel 91, quando era console ordinario, per essere impiegato nell'attuazione dei programmi domizianei di intenso rinnovamento edilizio della città.

Nonostante il nome greco, Apollodoro era dunque un Siriano di origine anellenica."

So is a Syrian having Elenic origin.

Yes, at that time, very possibly. Miskin 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "Syrian Greek" is also used for the Hellenistic and Roman age. I think you need to refresh your history as well as your sources. The word "Syrian" describes a geographical origin, not an ethnic one, deal with it and get on with your life. This is by the way the English wikipedia, and we tend to communicate in that language. Miskin 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The name Apollodorus is a greek name meaning "Gift of Apollo" and has been a name of many famous Greeks of the old times. Moreover his famous book "Πολιορκητικά" it was written in Greek. It is widely known that after the greek expedition of Alexander the Great and the following creation of the four Hellinistic States, many Héllenes (Greeks) settled in them. One of the Kindom was that of the Dynastie of Seulekides. King Seulecos so as to honour his father Antiochus gave his father's name to the city called Antiochia in Syria. When we arrive to Roman times, the regions of Syria and Palestine are inhabited also by Greeks who had built their own cities or settled to existed ones. Apollodorus was a Greek born, Roman citizen, at the town of Damascus,Syria, part of the Roman Empire at that time. Someone one the page for Apollodorus is mentioning Syrian with the link [2], but even the link [2] Brittanica says :"Damascus-born Greek engineer and architect who worked primarily for the Roman emperor Trajan (reigned 98–117)..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrius9 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

a geek born in Syria, sounds like we have a Syrian Greek. Plus it

seems to be the best compromise while being factual.The Heakes 20:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

According to historical sources he has no greek ethnic background and barely spoke the language after living there for a few years later in life. He was only greek in the sense that he was born in an area that was conquered by Alexander the Great several hundred years prior. Similar to calling someone with an ethnic Afghan, Persian or Egyptian background for "greek" even though they never had any family settled in Greece and don't know the language. Apollodurus was only greek in that sense, nobody in his family ever settled in Greece before him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.126.35 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Apollodorus is Syrian not Greek

someone is vandalizing this page since a decade a adding false sources to claim he's Greek when he's a Syrian of Nabataeans heritage.

All the verified sites and pages indicate apollodorus is syrian: https://kids.kiddle.co/Apollodorus_of_Damascus

So why Wikipedia allows vandalism in the English version? We are waiting for stricter measures if Wikipedia wants to be trusted and taken seriously. <IP removed> 11:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, using reliable sources is not vandalism. Encyclopedia Britannica is a very reliable source, which does reference the Greek heritage of Apollodorus of Damascus. Syria during his time was part of the Greco-Roman world. He was Greek, no matter how much some people dislike that fact. Facts can't be ignored. Gramaic | Talk 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Very reliable" is a bit strong; EB is okay but it's not exactly the highest quality source. Brill's New Pauly, which is the standard reference encyclopedia for the classics, calls him "Engineer and military architect of the Roman imperial period"; the Grove Encyclopedia of Classical Art and Architecture calls him a Roman architect. Unless reliable specialist sources call him either Greek or Syrian, I would be inclined to follow their lead and go with something simple and unarguable such as "architect from Roman Damascus" Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes true, Britannica is not a very reliable source to base an ethnic claim entirely on, According to WP:RSP there is no consensus on whether it's reliable or not. It's a tertiary source.

The following four sources were previously used to support the claim that he was Arab/Syrian. As can be seen from this revision

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&oldid=1135262421

The Unity and Diversity of the Mediterranean World by George Sorton Osiris. 2: 406-463 [430]. published by The University of Chicago Press

Second source: Giuliana Calcani, Maamoun Abdulkarim (2003), Apollodorus of Damascus and Trajan's Column: From Tradition to Project, L'Erma di Bretschneider, p. 11, ISBN 88-8265-233-5, ...focusing on the brilliant architect Apollodorus of Damascus. This famous Syrian personage represents...

Third source:  Hong-Sen Yan, Marco Ceccarelli (2009), International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms: Proceedings of HMM 2008, Springer, p. 86, ISBN 978-1-4020-9484-2, He had Syrian origins coming from Damascus

Springer is a very reliable book publishing company

Also, this source which was removed by @Gramaic

Landart, Paula (2015-01-22). Finding Ancient Rome: Walks in the city. Paula Landart.

Other reliable sources that say he was Syrian/Arab:

This Oxford book calls him Syrian: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780198605683.001.0001/acref-9780198605683-e-0047

This study calls him a Nabatean ( page 1) Published by HAL (open archive), Science direct, and Semantic Scholar. All of which are reliable sources.

"The Pantheon is probably the joint work of Hadrian and of the Nabatean great architect Apollodorus of Damascus"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350630718302668

This academic book by professor to

Edward Togo Salmon

, calls him syrian. Publsihed by Taylor & Francis Group

A History of the Roman World, 348-356, 2013

"which the Syrian architect Apollodorus had built: some of its stone pillars are still standing"

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Apollodorus+nabatean&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1703247777987&u=%23p%3Diu9Vi_qiw50J

Whatsupkarren (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We have our differences on the reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica. I view it as reliable, while others might disagree with my view. However, we can all agree that the Encyclopedia Britannica is an acceptable source. I rewrote the section regarding his ethnicity in more neutral terms, including all sources from all views (those claiming him as Greek, and those claiming him as Nabataean). I also added a new source from the old writer and historian, Lawrence B. Phillips, that refers to him as Greek. Whether some people like it or not, there are credible sources that refer to him as Greek, and we cannot simply remove a source, and deem it as 'unreliable' just because we don't like what is being said. We must be npov, and equally represent all views of history.

Gramaic | Talk 07:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gramaic

Do you have reliable academic sources to support your claim? The sources I've provided are much more reliable than yours. They are peer-reviewed publications. Per WP:VERIFY

"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science"

That doesn't apply to the sources you provided. Also not sure why you think that just because a book was written 200 years ago it becomes reliable! It's preferred to avoid these per WP:AGE MATTERS.

If you're only gonna use Britannica and and a +century old book that is not academic nor written by academic person and is basically a self published book, which Wikipedia tells us not to use, ( I mean who was this person ? ) then I dont think your claim can be included in the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV Since that could create a false parity.Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do have other reliable and peer-reviewed sources, not just Britannica and the article by Lawrence Phillips.

Here are more peer-reviewed sources that are quite reliable that reference the Greek heritage of Apollodorus of Damascus:

Georgakopoulos, Konstantinos. (1998). Ancient Greek Scientists. Georgiades Publications. Athens.

Kotsanas, Kostas. (2013) Ancient Greek Technology The Inventions of the ancient Greeks. Kostas Kotsanas Publications. Pyrgos.

You said,

"The sources I've provided are much more reliable than yours."

My response: That is just your opinion, and is a pov stance. In all fairness both our sources are equally as reliable, but have a differing opinion on the ethnicity of Apollodorus of Damascus.

Also you said,

"Also not sure why you think that just because a book was written 200 years ago it becomes reliable!"

My response: Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant. That century year old source referred to his Greek identity, and the newer and more modern sources that I provided also reference his Greek heritage. Reference to Apollodorus of Damascus being Greek isn't something that was documented well over a century ago, but the newer sources that I provided also say the same thing.

As for your skepticism of Britannica not being a reliable source regarding Apollodorus of Damascus, it was written and edited by scholars and historians that are more qualified and knowledgeable than the both of us.

Here is the list of the scholars and historians that wrote about him:

britannica.com/biography/Apollodorus-of-Damascus/additional-info#history

So dear friend, we must make accept, compromise, and make peace that there are sources that claim him as both Greek, and claim him as Nabataean.

Merry Christmas,

Gramaic | Talk 22:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gramaic why didn't you provide links to the sources you've provided? And can you tell us how are these sources peer reviewed? Please provide the exact pages where they say he was green

Moreover, the sources you provided are definitely and according to wiki:verifiability not equal to my sources. The two sources you just gave seem to be written by authors who are not academians, so why are they reliable sources? Can you tell us ? Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, friend. Here are two reliable sources that are academic and more modern. One is called, "Historical Dictionary of Architecture," by Allison Lee Palmer which was published in 2016, on page 48 of this book, it references the Greek identity of Apollodorus of Damascus on page 48. The second source I provided is titled, "Ancient Rome," by William E. Dunstan which was published in 2011, on page 565 of this book in the index, the Greek identity of Apollodorus of Damascus is also referenced.

Here are the links to them:

[2]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_Architecture/aMsvDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=apollodorus+of+damascus+Greek&pg=PA48&printsec=frontcover

[3]https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_Rome/xkOhwFzz1AkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=apollodorus+of+damascus+Greek&pg=PA565&printsec=frontcover

So dear friend, I provided you the links of the sources, along with their respective page numbers that clearly mention a Greek identity.

Your sources are acceptable, but not unequal to mine, as you like to keep insisting.

With all due respect, I did not fail to provide academic sources like you claimed while you were reediting the section.

To be as fair and neutral as possible, it must be acknowledged that there are reliable and academic sources that claim him as Greek, and claim him as Nabataean.

Gramaic | Talk 06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this topic has been bothering me for years and after doing some research and using logic I came to the conclusion: where do they get that Apollodorus is a Nabatean? English: no source that gives it as such offers a real reason for weight, using common sense and reviewing history the Nabataeans until the definitive conquest of Trajan of his kingdom were a totally independent people and culture and that they did not have any type of significant Hellenization or Romanization, if any, different from the case of the Syrians and Phoenicians who since the time of the Hellenistic kingdoms did have an early and strong Hellenization and even many Greeks and Macedonians migrated to those places in Syria including Damascus and then with Romanization when Rome conquered the Seleucid Empire and created the Roman province of Syria where Damascus was but the Nabataeans were on their side autonomous and independent until the conquest of Trajan therefore the most logical thing is to think that Apollodorus was a descendant of Greek settlers of the many who arrived in Syria including Damascus since the time of the Hellenistic kingdoms (which would be the first option and more viable) or in any case a hellenized Syrian, which would also make sense, or that he was of mixed Greek-Syrian ancestry but in no way Nabatean, it makes no sense or logic. Milton77778 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

As a clear example of the migration of Greek settlers to the entire territory of Syria is that of Posidonius who was born long before Apollodorus in Apamea to a Greek family settled there and like these cases there are many more so it seems perfectly viable and correct to me that Apollodorus is Greek also in the article they say that Apollodorus took Nabatean cultural influences and so on which also does not make sense due to everything said above, if Apollodorus took any cultural, architectural influences he took them from the Syrian or Phoenician culture which were the most important and developed cultures in that entire region along with the Hellenistic culture, the Nabatean culture was very small and inconsequential compared to the Phoenician, Syrian, Hellenistic culture so it seems to me that many historians interpret things very badly and make basic errors. Milton77778 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Death ordered by Hadrian

Moved from User talk:Milton77778 § Editing at Apollodorus of Damascus

 – AukusRuckus (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It is one thing to believe a point should be included – or given greater emphasis – in an article. I see no problem with saying that Cassius Dio's account may be historical. (I feel that was already implicit in the paragraph, though). It is quite another thing to replace a properly referenced statement, that makes grammatical sense in English, with a convoluted, repetitive and unsourced statement that comes across as opinion (as here) masquerading as fact,

such as your insertion: This not only replaced sentences that made sense:

"Although some historians doubt that Hadrian would have ordered the death of Apollodorus, it cannot be completely ruled out since the numerous episodes of anger and violence of the Emperor Hadrian have been proven and this could have been the cause of a moment of anger and the fact that Dion Casio perfectly mentions the facts and cause really is to take into account or at least not rule out the possibility."

"Some modern scholars cast doubt on this event. According to the historian Jona Lendering, modern scholarship views the anecdote as unlikely to have occurred, due to Hadrian's likely preoccupation with far greater threats to his power early in his reign, and that the criticism Apollodorus proffered was acted upon.",

it removed the supporting cite and its included quotation from Lendering:

Most scholars believe that it is not true that Hadrian ordered the assassination of the architect. [...] There is ... serious reason to doubt the anecdote about Hadrian murdering Apollodorus, and its origin may have been that the architect died - of natural causes - at the beginning of Hadrian's reign, when several senators were executed.

There is no reason to wreck the legitimate work of others, even if you want it to say more (or something else). Doing so seems destructive and disrespectful.

I have rephrased your claim and marked it with a {{citation needed}} tag. If you do not supply a citation supporting: "While some, considering this episode as consistent with Hadrian's documented acts of anger and violence, do believe the execution occurred ..." (or some similar version of this), I will remove the entire claim.

Altogether, this constitutes a lot of work on my part, which is rightly the work you should be doing. In future, I will remove unsourced or purely opinion claims like these that you place, rather than spending time trying to improve the expression of material that you wish to see included, finding sources for your claims myself (as I have done before), or trying to communicate with you, only to be completely ignored. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

THE source is dion cassius and there is no other ancient source that indicates another version then why do you doubt dion cassius? that same historian that they endorse in occasions when it suits them but in others not that is little sine I have source in if but if a logical analysis that fits perfectly with the well documented episodes of anger and iolencia of Adriano and this if that they affirm it ALL also the fact that his suggestions were accepted does not have to be in that moment but after being executed in a moment of calm of adriano who used to suffer of this type of brusque emotional changes, the sources you cite do not really prove that such proposals of apollodorus were carried out while apollodorus was alive could have been carried out after he was executed, in any case you should not put sources that do not really prove anything, I think a logical analysis many times is more correct and sensible with data that ARE WELL DOCUMENTED as the episodes of anger and violence of adrianus and the fact that he had bigger threats like the senators does not have to avoid that apollodorus is not a victim more. Milton77778 (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt Cassius Dio. I follow what WP:RS say. Cassius Dio is a source for his account; it is not a source for what modern scholars contend. We need a source to support that Hadrian's established episodes of anger are evidence for his killing of Apollodorus (not your opinion that they do).

Please read WP:Original research and WP:SYNTH. If, after you've carefully read those, you still genuinely think that the paragraph with your long, run-on sentence inserted, better fits the sources and WP policy, then I would be happy to think again. Let me know when you have had a look at those policy pages. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts moving this discussion from the user's talk page. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Historians simply sell a story, a story based on what suits them. That is something that everyone knows. As I said before Dio Cassius is a more than reliable source and a source that several of those historians you mention have given as a source to support their claims. stories on other topics, curiously in the case of Hadrian they doubt Dion Cassius which leads me to suspect those supposed historians but the reality is that everything fits perfectly with Hadrian's episodes of anger and it is on what Dion Cassius was surely based at least do not rule out this possibility, also it seems ridiculous to me that they do not allow people to want to investigate on their own, in the end this is about everyone having a spirit of investigation and criticism. THERE ARE MANY poorly written, erroneous articles that people like me could do a much better job but they censor us, Wikipedia is a total lie and lost all quality and credibility years ago, really regrettable. Milton77778 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

•      (Regarding mention of "total lie and lost all quality and credibility", please see your talk page User talk:Milton77778 § Editing at Apollodorus of Damascus)

Agreed. Historians simply stell a story: if they're good ones, they base it on research and honest intellectual inquiry, doing their best to minimise the effect of their understandable (because they're human), natural biases; if they're bad, they base it on "what suits them". If we edited the article your way, we'd be in this latter category.

Anyway, when all is said and done, Dio's account is there, as the primary one. It is not at all "ruled out". Giving modern historians' view that they consider it less likely (but not impossible), is the antithesis of censorship. I have wondered whether you have been trying to make sure only one view is given – in a few different articles, under your several accounts – or is at least emphasised in an WP:UNDUE way.

Why don't you add sources of reputable academic historians saying they believe Dio's account is most likely historically factual? No-one's censoring you. (You are the only one removing references.) And you seem to think ancient sources should be the only authority. Such an approach would definitely not be supportive of the spirit of investigation and criticism. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

YOU base yourselves on what suits you and those same historians that you mention use Dio Cassius as a source to support their work on other topics but curiously here they doubt it, clearly for a question of convenience, I simply ask that my position be exposed as well, a position that is more logical since it is supported by the well-recorded cases of Hadrian's anger and that is more than proven and is much more reliable than basing it on erroneous interpretations of the sources that you mention and I do not think that only the ancient sources matter, I simply say that a correct analysis and interpretation of them must be made because many times the error was there in the interpretation not in the source.

That is why Wikipedia has lost all credibility and quality because they do not even bother to investigate and analyze a little the articles they take for the different topics and that has led them to place hundreds of thousands of erroneous data in thousands of topics and the worst thing is that they do not modify them as it should be and when someone really wants to contribute something correct they prevent us that is CENSORSHIP also it would not be bad if some rules were modified to improve the administration of Wikipedia and saying so is not bad at all and is more necessary but if they do not want to obviously it is because they want to continue keeping Wikipedia in mediocrity, I am not trying to impose anything I simply ask that my position be taken into consideration with respect to several topics only that, at least take into account and place in the articles my positions that are well supported by sources of truth because in several topics there is misinformation, demagoguery, erroneous data etc. BUT THEY DO NOT EVEN DO THEY CENSOR ME DIRECTLY and that is why I must create other accounts because they block the previous one, just I ask that my postulates be taken into account and published, since they are based on truly objective data. Like me, there are many other people who do not have time to be here. Lastly, I am here because I thought things had improved, but they are going from bad to worse and then they call themselves the "free encyclopedia". Truly regrettable. Milton77778 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• (Regarding more general WP policy and editor compliance, please see your talk page: User talk:Milton77778 § On choosing to be here AukusRuckus (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia – any encyclopaedia – is not meant to contain the material you describe: They are not for postulation, academic debates, original research, or theorising based on what is logical to their contributors. We can report on such in articles, but not originate them – which is what your edit is doing. This kind of thing belongs in academic literature or public debate. And this approach does not apply just to WP, but to all encyclopaedias, everywhere. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopaedia.

To pull out some specific points:

• "supported by the well-recorded cases of Hadrian's anger": Please add sources for this. Is that too much to ask?
• "those same historians ... use Dio Cassius as a source to support their work on other topics but curiously here they doubt it, clearly for a question of convenience": This is a clear lack of understanding of how historical research and analysis works. (And how would it be "convenient" for them?)
• You ask that your "postulates be taken into account and published": If you have academic qualifications in the field, have published your findings in peer-reviewed works, then I would be glad to accept your postulates for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Original research is important, but it belongs in peer-reviewed works, not in WP, nor in any encyclopaedia – that is not what encyclopaedias are for. So add references to academic works that contain these postulates! Then of course they would, they have to, go in!
• Your views were immediately taken into account when I modified the paragraph to say that Hadrian's execution of Apollodorus is consistent with his recorded actions. We need sources to back up that statement.
• "well supported by sources of truth": Where are these sources? Please supply them. What you see as censorship is merely a requirement that we have reliable sources backing all claims. (I repeat: Dio's account remains in the article, and nothing implies anyone has "ruled out" his account.)

Perhaps these points do not answer your concerns, but they are honestly meant to explain. Best wishes to you, anyway, Milton. AukusRuckus (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)