![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Dacorum" is indeed the plural genitive of Dacus, but in Latin! Decebal's name was obviously Dacian. Bogdan | Talk 14:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
... i coud think of Daci+Baal or Dece+Baal (i understand Dece Decu was a latin root for "fame" , "rank", "superlative", but i can't say i am sure ...) it would be great to know exactly which ancient text mentions Decebalus for the first time, and if there were any explanations to what his name could have meant, or if it was a dacian name by which the dacians supernamed in dacian language their leader Criztu 22:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also derive the -Balus in Decebalus from the PIE root *bel- ('strong') or *bhel- ('swollen, large'). The Semitic resonance is no doubt a coincidence. The Dacians weren't Semites. Alexander 007 02:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'Elegabalus' is the Hellenized or Romanized form of the Semitic name (El-Jebel or something). One might say that Decebalus is also Romanized, yet: there is a Dacian bowl from Sarmizegetusa that has DECEBALUS inscribed on it---a Dacian inscription. The similarity of Dacian '-balus' to semitic 'bal/baal' or 'gevel' or whatever is surely a coincidence, and not an extreme coincidence at all. There was a Gaulish god of fire and of the sun named 'Beli', which is similar in name to Babylonian 'Bel'. Alexaner 007 07:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If Diurpaneus received a new "Semitic name" on some campaign or something, then both Dece- and -Balus need to be given Semitic etymologies. 'Dece' is unlikely to be from Semitic. Alexander 007 07:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Parthians were Indo-European speakers, kindred to Iranians. The Syrians were Semites. The Parthians originally did not worship any "Bel" god, they would have worshipped Iranian divinities (Ahura-Mazda, etc.). The Parthian connection is not evidence for what you intended. Alexander 007 07:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
does anybody know which ancient document mentions the name Decebalus for the first time ? -- Criztu 09:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "who although he did indeed kill himself, official Roman propaganda claimed that they killed him." after the sentence "It is likely, however, that in the process of dying Decebalus was captured by a Roman Cavalry Scout named Tiberius Claudius Maximus from Legio VII Claudia as is claimed on the funerary stele discovered at Gramini in Greece. " because it was grammatically awkward, and is making an unsubstantiatable claim - nobody who witnessed the death of Decebalus is alive today, and the forensic evidence is long disappeared. I did change "stated" to "claimed" to preserve the original authors intent in showing that claims made on stelae are often boastful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.230.17 ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted these yesterday, since they seemed unhelpful, badly written, and confusing. Today he has put them back in. I don't like edit wars -- does anyone else think they are of use, or should I go ahead and continue to revert? Mlouns ( talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to be more specific, the edits in question are way too long and rambling. I would suggest a very brief mention of the alternative definition, together with a reliable source for them. There is no need to go into such long-winded explanation in this context -- a mere mention coupled with a reference should suffice. Mlouns ( talk) 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I find especially the first paragraph containing extreme "hard" language. "had enough of him", "vice", "annoyed", "disturbing" are all out of place in the context. It would be nice if someone proficient in English and in history polished it up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroni ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Decebalus page, heading "War against Emperor Domitian", subheading Enemy's eye view, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: this says that the Dacians defeated the Romans (at the Second Battle of Tapae).
Second Battle of Tapae page calls this an "indecisive Roman victory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.177 ( talk) 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The German article cites a German-language source to the effect that, counter to claims made in some secondary literature, Decebalus and Diurpaneus are emphatically not the same person. Moreover, the article mentions another source that calls Decebalus a nephew of Diurpaneus, and identifies Diurpaneus with Duras, which supports the non-identity view; the first source rejects this identification, but agrees that they were two different people. This needs to be remedied in all articles that mention Diurpaneus. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, the German article points out that Decebalus is attested as a name more frequently, rendering it implausible as a victor's name or byname. Dacian is a virtually unknown language and etymological interpretations of Dacian names need very good sources. A lot of this is only guesswork, and the discussion above makes me suspicious if the "strong as ten people" interpretation might not be a case of original Wikipedian synthesis that was not actually attempted by Demiraj (1999) (or at best put forward as a tentative or speculative suggestion with much stronger caution). Which I suspect to be the following journal article: Lo sviluppo del sistema dei numerali nella lingua albanese, in: "Linguistique Balkanique" XL (3) [1999–2000] 267–277, Sofia. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the introduction describes Romania as "the successor to ancient Dacia", but this is a very doubtful formulation, for several reasons. First of all, except for Burebista's union (some of which must have been fairly flimsy), no "Dacian" state has ever really covered all, or even the majority of Romanian territory. Second, there is hardly any hint of at least modest continuity of state authority between the Dacian and the Romanian state which could make Romania a successor state any more than France is a successor state of a Gallic/Celtic kingdom or Moldova a successor state of Scythia or Sarmatia. Third, the nature of the two states is vastly different, as they are separated by almost two thousand years of state development; the nature of authority in the two political units is so vastly different that they cannot be so easily lumped in the same pot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 ( talk) 10:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, maybe this would be a good time to open up a wikipedia account, I'm the same guy responsible for the section about the doubtful succession.
I just noticed the box on the right lists "Andrada" as a consort for Decebalus. This is extremely wrong! I am not aware of a single historical source that mentions anything like this! It's taken from a Romanian film made in the seventies, which served a largely political purpose (wasn't necessarily very bad, but not too historically accurate either).
History is a hobby for me, not my primary occupation, so there is always the chance that I somehow missed this extremely important information about Decebalus, but unless someone can provide a historical source for this (and be ready to back its interpretation with arguments, because I am 99.9999% there is no written source that mentions a consort for Decebalus, so it's probably in the line of the famous "decebalvs / per scorillo" *if* it exists), I *strongly* suggest the removal of that line! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 ( talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decebalus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decebalus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Dacorum" is indeed the plural genitive of Dacus, but in Latin! Decebal's name was obviously Dacian. Bogdan | Talk 14:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
... i coud think of Daci+Baal or Dece+Baal (i understand Dece Decu was a latin root for "fame" , "rank", "superlative", but i can't say i am sure ...) it would be great to know exactly which ancient text mentions Decebalus for the first time, and if there were any explanations to what his name could have meant, or if it was a dacian name by which the dacians supernamed in dacian language their leader Criztu 22:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also derive the -Balus in Decebalus from the PIE root *bel- ('strong') or *bhel- ('swollen, large'). The Semitic resonance is no doubt a coincidence. The Dacians weren't Semites. Alexander 007 02:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'Elegabalus' is the Hellenized or Romanized form of the Semitic name (El-Jebel or something). One might say that Decebalus is also Romanized, yet: there is a Dacian bowl from Sarmizegetusa that has DECEBALUS inscribed on it---a Dacian inscription. The similarity of Dacian '-balus' to semitic 'bal/baal' or 'gevel' or whatever is surely a coincidence, and not an extreme coincidence at all. There was a Gaulish god of fire and of the sun named 'Beli', which is similar in name to Babylonian 'Bel'. Alexaner 007 07:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If Diurpaneus received a new "Semitic name" on some campaign or something, then both Dece- and -Balus need to be given Semitic etymologies. 'Dece' is unlikely to be from Semitic. Alexander 007 07:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Parthians were Indo-European speakers, kindred to Iranians. The Syrians were Semites. The Parthians originally did not worship any "Bel" god, they would have worshipped Iranian divinities (Ahura-Mazda, etc.). The Parthian connection is not evidence for what you intended. Alexander 007 07:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
does anybody know which ancient document mentions the name Decebalus for the first time ? -- Criztu 09:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "who although he did indeed kill himself, official Roman propaganda claimed that they killed him." after the sentence "It is likely, however, that in the process of dying Decebalus was captured by a Roman Cavalry Scout named Tiberius Claudius Maximus from Legio VII Claudia as is claimed on the funerary stele discovered at Gramini in Greece. " because it was grammatically awkward, and is making an unsubstantiatable claim - nobody who witnessed the death of Decebalus is alive today, and the forensic evidence is long disappeared. I did change "stated" to "claimed" to preserve the original authors intent in showing that claims made on stelae are often boastful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.230.17 ( talk) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted these yesterday, since they seemed unhelpful, badly written, and confusing. Today he has put them back in. I don't like edit wars -- does anyone else think they are of use, or should I go ahead and continue to revert? Mlouns ( talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to be more specific, the edits in question are way too long and rambling. I would suggest a very brief mention of the alternative definition, together with a reliable source for them. There is no need to go into such long-winded explanation in this context -- a mere mention coupled with a reference should suffice. Mlouns ( talk) 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I find especially the first paragraph containing extreme "hard" language. "had enough of him", "vice", "annoyed", "disturbing" are all out of place in the context. It would be nice if someone proficient in English and in history polished it up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroni ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Decebalus page, heading "War against Emperor Domitian", subheading Enemy's eye view, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: this says that the Dacians defeated the Romans (at the Second Battle of Tapae).
Second Battle of Tapae page calls this an "indecisive Roman victory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.177 ( talk) 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The German article cites a German-language source to the effect that, counter to claims made in some secondary literature, Decebalus and Diurpaneus are emphatically not the same person. Moreover, the article mentions another source that calls Decebalus a nephew of Diurpaneus, and identifies Diurpaneus with Duras, which supports the non-identity view; the first source rejects this identification, but agrees that they were two different people. This needs to be remedied in all articles that mention Diurpaneus. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, the German article points out that Decebalus is attested as a name more frequently, rendering it implausible as a victor's name or byname. Dacian is a virtually unknown language and etymological interpretations of Dacian names need very good sources. A lot of this is only guesswork, and the discussion above makes me suspicious if the "strong as ten people" interpretation might not be a case of original Wikipedian synthesis that was not actually attempted by Demiraj (1999) (or at best put forward as a tentative or speculative suggestion with much stronger caution). Which I suspect to be the following journal article: Lo sviluppo del sistema dei numerali nella lingua albanese, in: "Linguistique Balkanique" XL (3) [1999–2000] 267–277, Sofia. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the introduction describes Romania as "the successor to ancient Dacia", but this is a very doubtful formulation, for several reasons. First of all, except for Burebista's union (some of which must have been fairly flimsy), no "Dacian" state has ever really covered all, or even the majority of Romanian territory. Second, there is hardly any hint of at least modest continuity of state authority between the Dacian and the Romanian state which could make Romania a successor state any more than France is a successor state of a Gallic/Celtic kingdom or Moldova a successor state of Scythia or Sarmatia. Third, the nature of the two states is vastly different, as they are separated by almost two thousand years of state development; the nature of authority in the two political units is so vastly different that they cannot be so easily lumped in the same pot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 ( talk) 10:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, maybe this would be a good time to open up a wikipedia account, I'm the same guy responsible for the section about the doubtful succession.
I just noticed the box on the right lists "Andrada" as a consort for Decebalus. This is extremely wrong! I am not aware of a single historical source that mentions anything like this! It's taken from a Romanian film made in the seventies, which served a largely political purpose (wasn't necessarily very bad, but not too historically accurate either).
History is a hobby for me, not my primary occupation, so there is always the chance that I somehow missed this extremely important information about Decebalus, but unless someone can provide a historical source for this (and be ready to back its interpretation with arguments, because I am 99.9999% there is no written source that mentions a consort for Decebalus, so it's probably in the line of the famous "decebalvs / per scorillo" *if* it exists), I *strongly* suggest the removal of that line! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 ( talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decebalus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decebalus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)