i guess in my opinion, which is certainly arguable, the term calculus should refer to the connection between derivatives and integrals. I.e. there is to me no such thing as differential calculus, or integral calculus separately, regardless of the traditional textbook usages of those terms.
the reason i say this is that doing integration essentially by taking limits of riemann sums, was known to archimedes, and finding tangent lines by linear approximation, was also known to descartes and fermat.
but the power of calculus comes from noticing that one does not need to labor at taking lmits of sums in order to compute integrals, if one sees the connection between the moving area function and the height functioin, i.e. that the height function is the derivative of the area function.
so i feel the problem of finding tangents is not of THAT much importance alone, and the more significant problems of finding areas and volumes and moments and arclengths, etc... are too hard to solve when considered alone as limits.
so that's why i said calculus is the combination of the two techniques, i.e. the integration of a family of local linearizations, to obtain a global solution to a non linear problem.
and this is why i think the invention of calculus is attributed not to archimedes or fermat, but to Newton and leibniz, much later.
i should admit i have changed my opinion on this matter several times over 40 years, and have only come to this view recently. but presumably "calculus" should refer to a method forcalcuklating thigns, ans essentially archimedes had no method for calculating his sums anywhere neara s effective as the modern calculus. he ahd a wonderful way of exopressing non linear problems as limits of linear ones, but he could only calculate those limits in the simpelst cases, and did not even know for e.g. the area under a cubic curve it seems.
to oversimplify, the greeks were only masters of the "calculus" of conics and lines.