This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 12 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Early-medieval states. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. However, it would be reasonable to try again with Post-Roman kingdoms instead as there seems to be initial support for it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Barbarian kingdoms → Early-medieval states – I believe that the correct and most historically accurate option is Early-medieval states or States of the Early Middle Ages, and it is for a very simple reason, not all the emerged states had a Germanic origin, like the Alans, who were Iranians, or they did not have a barbarian origin (in the sense of 'foreigner') at all, like Sabaria, Orospeda or Corduba (in the case of Hispania, and these states were neither kingdoms, but oligarchic republics), the Domain of Soissons (wrongly called kingdom; in Gaul), etc. 83.49.201.214 ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title. No such user ( talk) 11:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Barbarian kingdoms →
Post-Roman kingdoms – Posting this to RM for
SultanSelimGrim. See that user's rationale below.
Srnec (
talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Taking in consideration the last discussion that ended in consensus (oppose Early-medieval states), is that I propose to change the name and scope of the article to Post-Roman kingdoms (Yes there existed "republics", but they were few, and the academic name for the period is "Post-Roman Kingdoms").
Arguments in favor:
1.- The "barbarism" is subjective: to an ancient greek, all no greek was barbarian, including the romans. To the late romans of V century, all peoples outside the roman empire were barbarians,... including the Sassanid Empire¡ To the chinese of these times, the fall of western Rome would be a "hu"(barbarian) fighting other "hu". The term is very subjective.(What is a barbarian and when the barbarian stop being a barbarian? Charlemagne? Rennasainse? Industrial Revolution? Hehe) The germanic/iranic/hunnic/etc. peoples of the time didn't considerate themselves "barbarians" destroying "civilizations", but people in movement conquering new territories for themselves.
2.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" exclude the latin and later greek states like Soissons, Dalmatia and the Eastern Rome Empire, entities that are necessary to understand the post-roman world(400-600 AD).
3.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" let the introduction of entities divorced from the Roman world like the "Danish Kingdom" ,"Geatish Kingdom", "Rus Khaganate" and others.They are important for the later European Middle Ages, but no for the Post-Roman immediate period : The romans never adventured into Scandinavia or Russia. In the most extreme or ridiculous end of this approach (chasing "barbarians"), we will end including the Hephthalites, the Five barbarians of China : /info/en/?search=Five_Barbarians, or the Mongols. We need to stop somewhere.
4.- There is growing consensus in the academic that see the post roman world (after the fall of Western Rome) as a continuation of the late roman empire, not as a break. Trade continued, ideas was interchanged and is generally assumed that the "Mediterranean cultural sphere" was splintered only by the Arab conquests in the VII century.The timeline of the article would end with this event.
5.- A separate article " Germanic kingdoms" or " Post-Roman Germanic kingdoms" would dealt exclusively with the description of the Germanic kingdoms as Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals and others.(Here would be mentioned the "Danish Kingdom","Geatish Kingdom" or other entities in the north) (Rus' Khaganate remain a hypothesis).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSelimGrim ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The Barbarian Kingdoms specifically refers to the barbarians who invaded and destroyed the Western Roman Empire and then settled in its territory and stole its identity. This does not refer to all the barbarians who ever went to war with the Romans, that' s why we don't mention the Celts for example. These Brbarian Kingdoms were: Goths, Franks, Anglos, Lombards, Vandals. Literally all of them were Germanic. The Alans/Iranians and Huns were nomadic and never established kingdoms within Roman territory(the Mediterranean). Can you understand this Mr. Anonymous who is constantly vandalizing this article? Stop being ashamed of your true ancestors.
Also, "Northern Europe" is a totally vague term since "Europe" is a fake continent invented to cause this kind of misunderstanding of history. JebelAqra ( talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone needs to calm down and read the talk page. I, SultanSelimGrim, don't think that "germanic", "Iranian", "celtic" or "hunnish" were "barbarian". But the definition is Useful and the result of a consensus. So NO-Roman political entity in Late Antiquity = Barbarian. Celts/Germanic/Berbers/Huns/Avars = Barbarian.
If you disagree with the common definition, come on, begin a new discussion on the topic requesting a move. Thank you.
SultanSelimGrim (
talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I will repeat it for the thousandth time: This article is not about all the barbarians in the world, nor all the peoples that the Romans went to war against, this article is about the barbarians of the post-Barbarian Invasions who settled in the territory of the Western Roman Empire and founded their own kingdoms. Example: Franks, Goths, Lombards, Vandals (no refere), etc. If you know of any people other than Germanic people who settled in western Roman territory after the Barbarian Invasions, feel free to name them and receive an award for rediscovering history. ps: The anonymous troll is so ashamed of his true ancestors that he doesn't even want to write their name, how pathetic. JebelAqra ( talk) 15:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources please. Someone doesnt know that "Romano Berbers" or Celts were called also barbarians.
It refers to the romano Berbers of Altava as " “bárbaros del sur” (beréberes)"-Barbarian. Berber =/=Germanic.
-reference :" Modern culture generally associates the Huns with extreme cruelty and barbarism" Sinor, Denis (1990). "The Hun Period". In Sinor, Denis (ed.). The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia (1. publ. ed.) Yep and the Huns formed a kingdom in Roman Panonia, and not were "germanic"
Mauritania →passed into "barbarian domain": The Mauro roman kingdom →Next East Rome/Altava → Umayyad Caliphate
Pannonia → passed into Hunnic Empire's control→Gepid Kingdom→Avar Khaganate→ Frankish Empire +Bulgarian Khanate→Hungarian principality
Britania → passed into Sub Roman Britan → Celtic kingdoms as Rheged /Powys/Gwynedd → Anglosaxon Heptarchy
So, Mauritania, Britania and Pannonia aren't "Western Rome" eh?
What about the alanic kingdom of Orleans and Valence? And the Vandal-Alan kingdom in Africa? Secundary Source, that described the alans (iranian nomads that invaded Gaul, Hispani and Africa) as Barbarian: https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianAlans.htm
Or the vascones and astures in North Spain. Do you knew about the visigoth constant war against them?
All are "germanic" barbarians that people are "ashamed of". Yeah. Of course.
SultanSelimGrim (
talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
1.- I already put a link on a spanish article about the historiography of the romano-berbers(Altava, Garmul, Kusaila, Dihya, etc): It calls them "barbaros"/barbarians. From: Francisco Aguado Blázquez in 2005 .(He is a military doctor with interest in the time period. I can get quotes from historians dedicated to the matter, but it will take time)
2.-Now taking quotes from Chris Wickham in his excellent book F"raming the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800", Oxford from (2005), we have that the author doesn't like to use the term "barbarian"( he uses it with quotation marks)
In page 530, we have a discussion about the bagaudian rebels and ( in passing)about the Alans in Gaul: "They [Bagaudae]are universally seen as in some way external to the social order, both in Salvian and in other texts, and as rebellious—armies are routinely sent against them, both Roman and barbarian (the Alan Goar in Armorica, roughly north-western Gaul, in the 440s, on Aetius’ instructions; the Visigoth Frederic in Spain in 454, acting ex auctoritate romana)."
Now, the Alans were iranian nomads(not germanic), but were part of the various peoples that invaded western Rome. They founded short lived kingdoms in Orleans (leaded by Goar) and in Valence(leaded by Attaces). To speed up, I refer the wikipedia page on Alans: /info/en/?search=Alans
3.-I would like to use more quotes from Hyun Jin Kim's revolutionary work for the History of the Huns (2016). But one interesting thing is his position on the debate of the ethnicity of Odoacer, the first "barbarian" king of Italy:
"Edeco’s son Odoacer, whose ancestry was likewise Hunnic founded the first ‘barbarian’ kingdom in Italy and delivered the coup-de-grâce on what remained of the Western Roman Empire" (pg 114)
So, if Odoacer is "barbarian", but not "german" but hunnish (is still a raging debate), should we exclude his kingdom from the article, because he isn't "germanic"?.
4.-Personally I don't like the term "barbarian", I prefer "post-roman". But the historians are the experts here.
Next week I will have more time for working in the article. Is an interesting time period (late Antiquety), and new things are being discovered (like the terrible volcanic winters of 536 and 540). SultanSelimGrim ( talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This kingdoms are called "barbarian kingdoms" because were founded by "barbarians", despite this barbarians were actually romanised (spoke latin, dressed like "native romans" and adopted Christianity) and many borned inside roman borders, but because they were not "proper citizens" are called "barbarians" ok, but when they stop being "barbaric"? Also this article could be renamed with the name by which these kingdoms called themselves instead using the actual outdated and contemptuous one. 88.5.110.127 ( talk) 19:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 12 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Early-medieval states. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The result of the move request was: not moved. However, it would be reasonable to try again with Post-Roman kingdoms instead as there seems to be initial support for it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Barbarian kingdoms → Early-medieval states – I believe that the correct and most historically accurate option is Early-medieval states or States of the Early Middle Ages, and it is for a very simple reason, not all the emerged states had a Germanic origin, like the Alans, who were Iranians, or they did not have a barbarian origin (in the sense of 'foreigner') at all, like Sabaria, Orospeda or Corduba (in the case of Hispania, and these states were neither kingdoms, but oligarchic republics), the Domain of Soissons (wrongly called kingdom; in Gaul), etc. 83.49.201.214 ( talk) 12:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title. No such user ( talk) 11:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Barbarian kingdoms →
Post-Roman kingdoms – Posting this to RM for
SultanSelimGrim. See that user's rationale below.
Srnec (
talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Taking in consideration the last discussion that ended in consensus (oppose Early-medieval states), is that I propose to change the name and scope of the article to Post-Roman kingdoms (Yes there existed "republics", but they were few, and the academic name for the period is "Post-Roman Kingdoms").
Arguments in favor:
1.- The "barbarism" is subjective: to an ancient greek, all no greek was barbarian, including the romans. To the late romans of V century, all peoples outside the roman empire were barbarians,... including the Sassanid Empire¡ To the chinese of these times, the fall of western Rome would be a "hu"(barbarian) fighting other "hu". The term is very subjective.(What is a barbarian and when the barbarian stop being a barbarian? Charlemagne? Rennasainse? Industrial Revolution? Hehe) The germanic/iranic/hunnic/etc. peoples of the time didn't considerate themselves "barbarians" destroying "civilizations", but people in movement conquering new territories for themselves.
2.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" exclude the latin and later greek states like Soissons, Dalmatia and the Eastern Rome Empire, entities that are necessary to understand the post-roman world(400-600 AD).
3.- The term "Barbarian kingdoms" let the introduction of entities divorced from the Roman world like the "Danish Kingdom" ,"Geatish Kingdom", "Rus Khaganate" and others.They are important for the later European Middle Ages, but no for the Post-Roman immediate period : The romans never adventured into Scandinavia or Russia. In the most extreme or ridiculous end of this approach (chasing "barbarians"), we will end including the Hephthalites, the Five barbarians of China : /info/en/?search=Five_Barbarians, or the Mongols. We need to stop somewhere.
4.- There is growing consensus in the academic that see the post roman world (after the fall of Western Rome) as a continuation of the late roman empire, not as a break. Trade continued, ideas was interchanged and is generally assumed that the "Mediterranean cultural sphere" was splintered only by the Arab conquests in the VII century.The timeline of the article would end with this event.
5.- A separate article " Germanic kingdoms" or " Post-Roman Germanic kingdoms" would dealt exclusively with the description of the Germanic kingdoms as Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals and others.(Here would be mentioned the "Danish Kingdom","Geatish Kingdom" or other entities in the north) (Rus' Khaganate remain a hypothesis).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSelimGrim ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The Barbarian Kingdoms specifically refers to the barbarians who invaded and destroyed the Western Roman Empire and then settled in its territory and stole its identity. This does not refer to all the barbarians who ever went to war with the Romans, that' s why we don't mention the Celts for example. These Brbarian Kingdoms were: Goths, Franks, Anglos, Lombards, Vandals. Literally all of them were Germanic. The Alans/Iranians and Huns were nomadic and never established kingdoms within Roman territory(the Mediterranean). Can you understand this Mr. Anonymous who is constantly vandalizing this article? Stop being ashamed of your true ancestors.
Also, "Northern Europe" is a totally vague term since "Europe" is a fake continent invented to cause this kind of misunderstanding of history. JebelAqra ( talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone needs to calm down and read the talk page. I, SultanSelimGrim, don't think that "germanic", "Iranian", "celtic" or "hunnish" were "barbarian". But the definition is Useful and the result of a consensus. So NO-Roman political entity in Late Antiquity = Barbarian. Celts/Germanic/Berbers/Huns/Avars = Barbarian.
If you disagree with the common definition, come on, begin a new discussion on the topic requesting a move. Thank you.
SultanSelimGrim (
talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I will repeat it for the thousandth time: This article is not about all the barbarians in the world, nor all the peoples that the Romans went to war against, this article is about the barbarians of the post-Barbarian Invasions who settled in the territory of the Western Roman Empire and founded their own kingdoms. Example: Franks, Goths, Lombards, Vandals (no refere), etc. If you know of any people other than Germanic people who settled in western Roman territory after the Barbarian Invasions, feel free to name them and receive an award for rediscovering history. ps: The anonymous troll is so ashamed of his true ancestors that he doesn't even want to write their name, how pathetic. JebelAqra ( talk) 15:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources please. Someone doesnt know that "Romano Berbers" or Celts were called also barbarians.
It refers to the romano Berbers of Altava as " “bárbaros del sur” (beréberes)"-Barbarian. Berber =/=Germanic.
-reference :" Modern culture generally associates the Huns with extreme cruelty and barbarism" Sinor, Denis (1990). "The Hun Period". In Sinor, Denis (ed.). The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia (1. publ. ed.) Yep and the Huns formed a kingdom in Roman Panonia, and not were "germanic"
Mauritania →passed into "barbarian domain": The Mauro roman kingdom →Next East Rome/Altava → Umayyad Caliphate
Pannonia → passed into Hunnic Empire's control→Gepid Kingdom→Avar Khaganate→ Frankish Empire +Bulgarian Khanate→Hungarian principality
Britania → passed into Sub Roman Britan → Celtic kingdoms as Rheged /Powys/Gwynedd → Anglosaxon Heptarchy
So, Mauritania, Britania and Pannonia aren't "Western Rome" eh?
What about the alanic kingdom of Orleans and Valence? And the Vandal-Alan kingdom in Africa? Secundary Source, that described the alans (iranian nomads that invaded Gaul, Hispani and Africa) as Barbarian: https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/BarbarianAlans.htm
Or the vascones and astures in North Spain. Do you knew about the visigoth constant war against them?
All are "germanic" barbarians that people are "ashamed of". Yeah. Of course.
SultanSelimGrim (
talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
1.- I already put a link on a spanish article about the historiography of the romano-berbers(Altava, Garmul, Kusaila, Dihya, etc): It calls them "barbaros"/barbarians. From: Francisco Aguado Blázquez in 2005 .(He is a military doctor with interest in the time period. I can get quotes from historians dedicated to the matter, but it will take time)
2.-Now taking quotes from Chris Wickham in his excellent book F"raming the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800", Oxford from (2005), we have that the author doesn't like to use the term "barbarian"( he uses it with quotation marks)
In page 530, we have a discussion about the bagaudian rebels and ( in passing)about the Alans in Gaul: "They [Bagaudae]are universally seen as in some way external to the social order, both in Salvian and in other texts, and as rebellious—armies are routinely sent against them, both Roman and barbarian (the Alan Goar in Armorica, roughly north-western Gaul, in the 440s, on Aetius’ instructions; the Visigoth Frederic in Spain in 454, acting ex auctoritate romana)."
Now, the Alans were iranian nomads(not germanic), but were part of the various peoples that invaded western Rome. They founded short lived kingdoms in Orleans (leaded by Goar) and in Valence(leaded by Attaces). To speed up, I refer the wikipedia page on Alans: /info/en/?search=Alans
3.-I would like to use more quotes from Hyun Jin Kim's revolutionary work for the History of the Huns (2016). But one interesting thing is his position on the debate of the ethnicity of Odoacer, the first "barbarian" king of Italy:
"Edeco’s son Odoacer, whose ancestry was likewise Hunnic founded the first ‘barbarian’ kingdom in Italy and delivered the coup-de-grâce on what remained of the Western Roman Empire" (pg 114)
So, if Odoacer is "barbarian", but not "german" but hunnish (is still a raging debate), should we exclude his kingdom from the article, because he isn't "germanic"?.
4.-Personally I don't like the term "barbarian", I prefer "post-roman". But the historians are the experts here.
Next week I will have more time for working in the article. Is an interesting time period (late Antiquety), and new things are being discovered (like the terrible volcanic winters of 536 and 540). SultanSelimGrim ( talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
This kingdoms are called "barbarian kingdoms" because were founded by "barbarians", despite this barbarians were actually romanised (spoke latin, dressed like "native romans" and adopted Christianity) and many borned inside roman borders, but because they were not "proper citizens" are called "barbarians" ok, but when they stop being "barbaric"? Also this article could be renamed with the name by which these kingdoms called themselves instead using the actual outdated and contemptuous one. 88.5.110.127 ( talk) 19:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)