This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Odoacer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 4, 2011, September 4, 2015, September 4, 2017, September 4, 2019, September 4, 2021, and September 4, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Though not nearly as long as some other "B-class" articles, this is more than just a good start. You've got pictures and a succession box, and as far as I know you've said more or less all that can be said about this figure. LordAmeth 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to remove the inadequate word "Barbarian" from the succession box but the entire box disappeared. :( Can someone place the usefull succession box back but without the word "Barbarian"! Please. Thank You!
In the 'Death' section, should you not replace 'Sparkle' with 'Ravenna'? Pietro
I see this:
I've never read anything to suggest the demand for one-third of Italy stemmed from a broken promise made by Orestes. It's plausible, of course, but Gibbon (never one to overlook broken promises and betrayals) doesn't mention it in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Do we have a source?-- Idols of Mud 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The map shows the entire Eastern Hemisphere. If I zoom in really hard, I can see Odoacer's Kingdom and its neighbors, but I have to look for it, as it's not highlighted in any way. Is it possible to find a more focused and less colorful map? I don't think this one is very helpful. It's the equivalent of adding a complex map of the United States with the caption "Map showing Delaware and its neighbors" to the article on Delaware. --- Sluzzelin talk 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm restoring the map that shows the Eastern Hemisphere in 476 AD, which shows Odoacer's Kingdom. When you look at the actual map, you don't have to "zoom in really hard" to see Odoacer's Kingdom. Besides, the map is part of a series, and I will provide a more focused map when it's ready. Until then, why remove the only map that shows the actual Kingdom? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sluzzelin. I'm actually working on some corrections for some other maps in the series right now, and I'm waiting for some more feedback regarding the 476 map. Take a look at the current map when you get a chance and let me know if you see any errors. If you do, let me know by leaving a message on my talk page, including any source info and how I can fix the map. It might be a few more weeks before I can upload the a more focused map of 476 AD, but I'll definitely do it. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it true Odoacer wanted to make his son Roman emperor? Greutungen ( talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)greutungen
According to the map on the left, at the time Odoacer became ruler of Roman Italy, the Western Empire also had Moorish and Gaulish regions. How did rule transition from the Empire to the new rulers? 118.208.238.98 ( talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Odoacer was not a king of Italy. Italy didn't exist. He was merely a "rex", notably this is the first occasion in the west where the title was not tied to a nationality and he did it, we suppose, because he was not king merely of the Goths, but of all people in the area he controlled. 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez argue in their article Odoacer: German or Hun? in The American Historical Review Vol. 52, No. 1, Oct., 1946 that Odoacer could have been a Hun or most likely was a Hun. They say that the Germanic background was forced upon him by German philologists etc. Now I know that the article was written way back in 1946, but nowadays there are still many, many uncertainties regarding the peoples in the Late Antiquity. I was wondering how the article of Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez is seen by historians these days. The concincing part in their article in my opinion is that they manage to at least fill a gap left by the German philologists. Whether what they put in that gap is crap or not, I'm not sure. Some initial searching on Turkish etymologies seems to jibe with their claims. How do historians these days look at their article? 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This category should be removed for the fact that he was not an Italian. I mean first of all, Italy as a whole country did not exist until 1861 and most importantly, he was either a Hun or one of the Germanic people, therefore not an Italian and can't be placed in the Italian people category. Norum 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"He is considered the first non-Roman to ever have ruled all of Italy": well, was he, or was he not? We wouldn't say "George Washington is considered the first President of the United States." Now, if the claim is debatable, it's a different matter. If there are other figures who might be considered the first non-Roman to rule all Italy, there needs to be a little paragraph at the appropriate point in the article discussing that, and why it can't be stated as simple fact. If this is not a contested point, then it should be stated: "He was the first non-Roman to rule over all Italy." Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As for Odoacer's non-Roman/barbarian identity, it was significant for his contemporaries; he was an outsider, born & raised outside the Roman world. Consider Theodoric the Great, who was born & raised in the Roman world -- he spent part of his youth at the Imperial court as a hostage -- yet he was considered by the Romans as a barbarian. If Theodoric couldn't be accepted as a Roman, then Odoacer had no hope of gaining such recognition. The Romans of the Late Empire were very conscious of whether someone was a Roman or not. Eugippius practically describes Odoacer as a "skin-clad barbarian" in his hagiography of St. Severinus; one can't be any more of an outsider in Roman eyes than to be garbed in hides. Further, every inscription mentioning Odoacer describes him as king of an alien ethnic group, sometimes adding "of Italy" to that. Odoacer's reign is an important step in the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the west, which came to a definite end no later than Justinian's wars of conquest in the mid fifth-century. Exactly what effect his rule had in the process, this I agree needs to be further defined; but I'm hoping that the Wiki process of discussion & review will get us the explanation this article needs. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Today I found a photocopy I had made of the article on Odoacer from the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, & after carefully reviewing its contents as well as my poor German allowed me I was pleasantly surprised to discover that as of my latest contribution this article covers practically as much about this man as that authoritative reference does, with the addition of some of the scholarship since that article was published in the 1930s. I write this not to boast -- okay, I am a little -- but to state I don't know what more of importance could be added to this article. I am done with it; now it's time for the rest of you to continue to improve on it. Good luck. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone tell us how to pronounce his name? I don't mean how he or his nearest and dearest pronounced it, but how do literate historians pronounce it when they get together and chew these things over? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.212.164 ( talk) 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article states that ... a number of battles fought by King Childeric I of the Franks, Aegidius, Count Paul, and one "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius". If this is an account of Aegidius' victory over the Visigoths, otherwise known from the Chronicle of Hydatius, then this occurred in 463. Reynolds and Lopez in their article mentioned above, suggested that this "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius" may be the same person as the future king of Italy... This seems very hard to believe. Main reason: Odoaker was a son of Edeko, a member of the inner circle of Attila and maybe himself (partly) Hunnic, and a Skirian princess. He grew up in Pannonia. Only twelve years before in 451 there was a massive battle, the battle of Chalons, where he and his clanmembers fought among others the Romans, the Visigoths and the Salian Franks. It seems highly unlikely that the Visigoths would have chosen a close Hunnic ally and former enemy to lead them in battle in 463, especially noting that the Visigoths were normally led in battle by members of their own nobility. Secondly this "Odovacrius" as a leader of several Saxon warbands is also highly unlikely. He was non-Saxon and probably knew nothing of naval warfare. That's enough to rule this possibility out. That leaves only one possibility. Odovacrius (Odoaker) as a leader of an invasion army (comprised of elements of several tribes) around 463 that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Hunnic empire choose to, or were forced to invade Gallia, were they were defeated. In theory possible but I have never read about such an invasion. More likely scenario is that "Odovacrius" was a Saxon leader of a few warbands and that he was a different person then Odoaker. JRB-Europe ( talk) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Is Odoacer a fabrication? What are the primary sources that prove Odoacer's existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the presence of the Huns, especially in the Macedonia-Hungarian Plain area, posed a huge threat to the Byzantines, and the Lombards and Ostrogoths (aka Kievan Rus?) were invited in by the Byzantines to counter this threat.
Elements of both these groups seemed to have moved into the area about the same time, not a wise thing to do, unless you are positioning your tribe to fight the Huns, whose tactics are adapted to the open, steppe-like terrain found there.
The Byzantines used German soldiers, to the tune of nearly fifty percent of their army, at this time, and inviting the combative and notoriously militant Lombards into the area would have been an extension of this policy of using Germans for military ends. The same invitation, extended to the Ostrogoths would have brought in not only fighters but administrators; the Ostrogoths by their own historiography were said to have been invited into the region of the Pripyat area of the Dniepper River by the Slavs who sought their services in bringing about an end to Slavic tribal warfare.
Okay, none of this is in writing, but Nordic, or Germanic peoples didn't write as much as the Latins and Greeks, by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm getting at is that Odoacer may have been a Germanic, but particularly a Lombardic figure, and the Italy he ruled was actually secret, surreptitiously or covertly given to the Lombards by the Byzantines as payment in land for their efforts in weakening the Huns to the point where the lands of the Eastern Empire were spared Hunnic attacks, just as the Goths were paid in gold for the same services, and then later when troubles broke out in Italy between the Lombards and the Romans on a land-use and ownership level, the Goths were sent into Italy to settle that matter.
Now, this interpretation makes sense, I think you'll agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know where this statue is located and whether it is a statue of Odoacer?
The section dealing with Odoacer's takeover of Italy has the following.
"Bury, however, disagrees that Odoacer's assumption of power marked the fall of the Roman Empire:
It stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the dismemberment of the Empire. It belongs to the same catalogue of chronological dates which includes A.D. 418, when Honorius settled the Goths in Aquitaine, and A.D. 435, when Valentinian ceded African lands to the Vandals. In A.D. 476 the same principle of disintegration was first applied to Italy. The settlement of Odovacar's East Germans, with Zeno's acquiescence, began the process by which Italian soil was to pass into the hands of Ostrogoths and Lombards, Franks and Normans. And Odovacar's title of king emphasised the significance of the change.[26] "
This does not sound like disagreement. Quite the contrary Bury is stating that it stands out as an important stage in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D944:B4C3:782F:727 ( talk) 17:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "a barbarian statesman" in the lead strikes me as decidedly odd if not oxymoronic. Perhaps something like "a putative Germanic leader" – ?? – Sca ( talk) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Old High German Hildebrandslied (9th c.) the name is attested as Otachre (dative singular) and Otachres (genitive singular), presumably belonging to a nominative singular *Otacher or *Otachar. Possibly relevant for the onomastics section, don't really have time to edit it in rn tho. — Mnemosientje ( t · c) 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Obenritter. Concerning this edit: [1]. I was making a distinction in my mind between "the multi-ethnic empire of Attila" and the Huns simply. In other words, within his empire there were Gepids, Goths, Scirii, Heruli, Rugians, lots of Alans, etc etc. So I was trying to say that it seems uncontroversial that his background was somewhere in that complex mass of peoples, which is an interesting fact. In fact three of the groups he is most associated with all ended-up living near each other in the Middle Danube area, when the dust settled.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
He spared the life of Romulus Augustulus due to his "youth and beauty". A 10 year old child hasn't grown to have beauty yet, so this seems odd. Was this part of the ancient view of love between men and boys? Are there other examples of his interest in young boys or is this an isolated occurrence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.187.161 ( talk) 05:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Obenritter, first, I am not sure if you are referring to me but I am not an IP user ( 2), and in any case, keep good faith and don't call anybody "untrustworthy" ( 1).
You have removed legit content I added without providing a valid reason for your actions. You could've at least checked what I added before removing it: Magill is not the author of Odoacer's entry in the dictionary of world biography, that is Glenn L. Swygart! ( [1]) as specified in the article: Professor Glenn L. Swygart, in his entry for Odoacer in the Dictionary of World Biography, accepted the suggestion that Odoacer's father was the Hun ambassador, who married into the Germanic tribe of the Sciri., yet you apparently thought that the author was Magill since, citing a reason for the removal, you stated: Magill characterized Odoacer's identity as "Danubian-Hunnic-German" / Remove other content added by untrustworthy IP edits ( 3). By the way, what the Dictionary of World Biography states is: [Odoacer's] father was Edeco (sometimes spelled Edica or Edecon), a Hun who served under the infamous Attila. [1]
You removed Amory claiming that he said something entirely different, not with unequivocal editorialized comment added here ( 4). Yet the articles states:
Historian Patrick Amory notes that Odocer's father was called a Hun, and his mother a Scirian, and that his father was firstly associated with the Huns and then with the Scirians
while Amory said, and I am quoting him:
Odoacer is called a Scirian, a Rugian, a Goth, or a Thuringian in sources; his father is called a Hun, his mother a Scirian. Odoacer's father Edeco was associated first with the Huns under Attila, and then with a group called Sciri, an ethnographic name that appears intermittently in the fifth-century sources. [2]
So how did Amory said something "entirely different" from what I wrote in the article?
Then, yes, the editor's comment (Krautschick [...] argues that his father was a Hun and his mother a Scirian, and therefore would omit Rugian, Goth and Thuringian as "assertions influenced by other factors") is used to back Krautschick. But not Amory. In other words, Amory's pov comes from the main text of the book.
This is a Cambridge University Press publishing, and it is perfectly fine to use its commentary as a secondary source to summarise and back Krautschick's pov.
You accused me of adding fictitious page numbers ( 5) which indicates that either you haven't checked the sources at all or you are making things up.
I added the content again, with quotes for the Dictionary of World Biography and Amory. If you have any other doubt about the sources, we can talk about it here. Giray Altay ( talk) 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Bruce Macbain, noting that the "ancient sources exhibit considerable confusion over Odovacer's tribal affiliation, identifying him variously as a Skirian, a Rogian and/or Torcilingian, a Herul, and even a Goth", subsequently concludes that "not a single source calls him [Odoacer] a Hun".[18] Historian Penny MacGeorge points out that the confusion about Odoacer's ethnicity is exaggerated. Believing that the Torcilingi were simply a mistake for Thuringii, she argues that the claims he was a Hun "can almost certainly be dismissed". She asserts instead that Odoacer was "surely Germanic, probably half-Scirian, half-Thuringian, and he may have had connections with other tribes through intermarriage".
Historian Peter Heather points out that although Edeco's name is surely Germanic, this does not mean he (Edeco) was necessarily Germanic; Heather nonetheless adds, "though he may have been
References
[Odoacer's] father was Edeco (sometimes spelled Edica or Edecon), a Hun who served under the infamous Attila.
Odoacer is called a Scirian, a Rugian, a Goth, or a Thuringian in sources; his father is called a Hun, his mother a Scirian. Odoacer's father Edeco was associated first with the Huns under Attila, and then with a group called Sciri, an athnographic name that appears intermittently in the fifth-century sources. [...] Krautschick [...] argues that his father was a Hun and his mother a Scirian, and therefore would omit Rugian, Goth and Thuringian as "assertions influenced by other factors"
The pronunication is listed as being Odoaser. However this is the (wrong) way modern English people pronounce it based on the way they pronounce 'ace' in their language.
His contemporary pronunciation would've been something like Odowaker. With the a of course being pronounced like a roman (normal) long a. As c's were pronounced as k's in this time (also Germanic never had the shift from the k to s sound that Vulgar Latin did have >later<).
This is also why people in English are 'awake' and not 'awase'. Yes, waking and waker are related words, which becomes only obvious when the name is pronounced CORRECTLY! Oldrik9 ( talk) 08:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
His son's name was Oklan - a real Turkish word Nowhere in the wiki world do we see the name Oklan as Odoacer's son. Everywhere is written only Thela. It would be so revealing if we knew that his son's name is Oklan. Oğlan/Oglan is quite a real Turkish word for "the boy" or "the son". It is definitely an indicator of Odoacer's origins. UzunbacakAdem ( talk) 10:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (discussion) 12:47, 12 Apr 2023 (CEST) Uzunbacak Adem
Kim cites "Ganshof 1971, 87" for the oghlan etymology. This is "Ganshof, F. L. (1971) The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History, trans. J. Sondheimer. Ithaca, NY." François Louis Ganshof was not a linguist. It's possible he got it from an actual linguist, if someone cares to check. But this sort of etymology and citation to an inadequate source is pretty much how Kim operates on these things. Whatever you think about his scholarship otherwise, he'd provide a citation that "George" is a Turkic name if a Hun were name that.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@ PhillyGamez: after your revert, WP:BRD. Please justify your bold edits where you make Romulus Augustulus a predecessor of Odoacer. Your first edsum implied Odoacer was emperor, which is not true. Your second edit implies Romulus was effective ruler of Italy, which is also not true. Aren't you comparing apples with pears here and stretching the English language too far? Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Odoacer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 4, 2011, September 4, 2015, September 4, 2017, September 4, 2019, September 4, 2021, and September 4, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Though not nearly as long as some other "B-class" articles, this is more than just a good start. You've got pictures and a succession box, and as far as I know you've said more or less all that can be said about this figure. LordAmeth 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to remove the inadequate word "Barbarian" from the succession box but the entire box disappeared. :( Can someone place the usefull succession box back but without the word "Barbarian"! Please. Thank You!
In the 'Death' section, should you not replace 'Sparkle' with 'Ravenna'? Pietro
I see this:
I've never read anything to suggest the demand for one-third of Italy stemmed from a broken promise made by Orestes. It's plausible, of course, but Gibbon (never one to overlook broken promises and betrayals) doesn't mention it in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Do we have a source?-- Idols of Mud 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The map shows the entire Eastern Hemisphere. If I zoom in really hard, I can see Odoacer's Kingdom and its neighbors, but I have to look for it, as it's not highlighted in any way. Is it possible to find a more focused and less colorful map? I don't think this one is very helpful. It's the equivalent of adding a complex map of the United States with the caption "Map showing Delaware and its neighbors" to the article on Delaware. --- Sluzzelin talk 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm restoring the map that shows the Eastern Hemisphere in 476 AD, which shows Odoacer's Kingdom. When you look at the actual map, you don't have to "zoom in really hard" to see Odoacer's Kingdom. Besides, the map is part of a series, and I will provide a more focused map when it's ready. Until then, why remove the only map that shows the actual Kingdom? Thomas Lessman ( talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sluzzelin. I'm actually working on some corrections for some other maps in the series right now, and I'm waiting for some more feedback regarding the 476 map. Take a look at the current map when you get a chance and let me know if you see any errors. If you do, let me know by leaving a message on my talk page, including any source info and how I can fix the map. It might be a few more weeks before I can upload the a more focused map of 476 AD, but I'll definitely do it. Thomas Lessman ( talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it true Odoacer wanted to make his son Roman emperor? Greutungen ( talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)greutungen
According to the map on the left, at the time Odoacer became ruler of Roman Italy, the Western Empire also had Moorish and Gaulish regions. How did rule transition from the Empire to the new rulers? 118.208.238.98 ( talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Odoacer was not a king of Italy. Italy didn't exist. He was merely a "rex", notably this is the first occasion in the west where the title was not tied to a nationality and he did it, we suppose, because he was not king merely of the Goths, but of all people in the area he controlled. 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez argue in their article Odoacer: German or Hun? in The American Historical Review Vol. 52, No. 1, Oct., 1946 that Odoacer could have been a Hun or most likely was a Hun. They say that the Germanic background was forced upon him by German philologists etc. Now I know that the article was written way back in 1946, but nowadays there are still many, many uncertainties regarding the peoples in the Late Antiquity. I was wondering how the article of Robert L. Reynolds and Robert S. Lopez is seen by historians these days. The concincing part in their article in my opinion is that they manage to at least fill a gap left by the German philologists. Whether what they put in that gap is crap or not, I'm not sure. Some initial searching on Turkish etymologies seems to jibe with their claims. How do historians these days look at their article? 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This category should be removed for the fact that he was not an Italian. I mean first of all, Italy as a whole country did not exist until 1861 and most importantly, he was either a Hun or one of the Germanic people, therefore not an Italian and can't be placed in the Italian people category. Norum 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"He is considered the first non-Roman to ever have ruled all of Italy": well, was he, or was he not? We wouldn't say "George Washington is considered the first President of the United States." Now, if the claim is debatable, it's a different matter. If there are other figures who might be considered the first non-Roman to rule all Italy, there needs to be a little paragraph at the appropriate point in the article discussing that, and why it can't be stated as simple fact. If this is not a contested point, then it should be stated: "He was the first non-Roman to rule over all Italy." Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As for Odoacer's non-Roman/barbarian identity, it was significant for his contemporaries; he was an outsider, born & raised outside the Roman world. Consider Theodoric the Great, who was born & raised in the Roman world -- he spent part of his youth at the Imperial court as a hostage -- yet he was considered by the Romans as a barbarian. If Theodoric couldn't be accepted as a Roman, then Odoacer had no hope of gaining such recognition. The Romans of the Late Empire were very conscious of whether someone was a Roman or not. Eugippius practically describes Odoacer as a "skin-clad barbarian" in his hagiography of St. Severinus; one can't be any more of an outsider in Roman eyes than to be garbed in hides. Further, every inscription mentioning Odoacer describes him as king of an alien ethnic group, sometimes adding "of Italy" to that. Odoacer's reign is an important step in the disappearance of the Roman Empire in the west, which came to a definite end no later than Justinian's wars of conquest in the mid fifth-century. Exactly what effect his rule had in the process, this I agree needs to be further defined; but I'm hoping that the Wiki process of discussion & review will get us the explanation this article needs. -- llywrch ( talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Today I found a photocopy I had made of the article on Odoacer from the Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, & after carefully reviewing its contents as well as my poor German allowed me I was pleasantly surprised to discover that as of my latest contribution this article covers practically as much about this man as that authoritative reference does, with the addition of some of the scholarship since that article was published in the 1930s. I write this not to boast -- okay, I am a little -- but to state I don't know what more of importance could be added to this article. I am done with it; now it's time for the rest of you to continue to improve on it. Good luck. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone tell us how to pronounce his name? I don't mean how he or his nearest and dearest pronounced it, but how do literate historians pronounce it when they get together and chew these things over? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.212.164 ( talk) 11:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article states that ... a number of battles fought by King Childeric I of the Franks, Aegidius, Count Paul, and one "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius". If this is an account of Aegidius' victory over the Visigoths, otherwise known from the Chronicle of Hydatius, then this occurred in 463. Reynolds and Lopez in their article mentioned above, suggested that this "Adovacrius" or "Odovacrius" may be the same person as the future king of Italy... This seems very hard to believe. Main reason: Odoaker was a son of Edeko, a member of the inner circle of Attila and maybe himself (partly) Hunnic, and a Skirian princess. He grew up in Pannonia. Only twelve years before in 451 there was a massive battle, the battle of Chalons, where he and his clanmembers fought among others the Romans, the Visigoths and the Salian Franks. It seems highly unlikely that the Visigoths would have chosen a close Hunnic ally and former enemy to lead them in battle in 463, especially noting that the Visigoths were normally led in battle by members of their own nobility. Secondly this "Odovacrius" as a leader of several Saxon warbands is also highly unlikely. He was non-Saxon and probably knew nothing of naval warfare. That's enough to rule this possibility out. That leaves only one possibility. Odovacrius (Odoaker) as a leader of an invasion army (comprised of elements of several tribes) around 463 that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Hunnic empire choose to, or were forced to invade Gallia, were they were defeated. In theory possible but I have never read about such an invasion. More likely scenario is that "Odovacrius" was a Saxon leader of a few warbands and that he was a different person then Odoaker. JRB-Europe ( talk) 00:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Is Odoacer a fabrication? What are the primary sources that prove Odoacer's existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the presence of the Huns, especially in the Macedonia-Hungarian Plain area, posed a huge threat to the Byzantines, and the Lombards and Ostrogoths (aka Kievan Rus?) were invited in by the Byzantines to counter this threat.
Elements of both these groups seemed to have moved into the area about the same time, not a wise thing to do, unless you are positioning your tribe to fight the Huns, whose tactics are adapted to the open, steppe-like terrain found there.
The Byzantines used German soldiers, to the tune of nearly fifty percent of their army, at this time, and inviting the combative and notoriously militant Lombards into the area would have been an extension of this policy of using Germans for military ends. The same invitation, extended to the Ostrogoths would have brought in not only fighters but administrators; the Ostrogoths by their own historiography were said to have been invited into the region of the Pripyat area of the Dniepper River by the Slavs who sought their services in bringing about an end to Slavic tribal warfare.
Okay, none of this is in writing, but Nordic, or Germanic peoples didn't write as much as the Latins and Greeks, by any stretch of the imagination. What I'm getting at is that Odoacer may have been a Germanic, but particularly a Lombardic figure, and the Italy he ruled was actually secret, surreptitiously or covertly given to the Lombards by the Byzantines as payment in land for their efforts in weakening the Huns to the point where the lands of the Eastern Empire were spared Hunnic attacks, just as the Goths were paid in gold for the same services, and then later when troubles broke out in Italy between the Lombards and the Romans on a land-use and ownership level, the Goths were sent into Italy to settle that matter.
Now, this interpretation makes sense, I think you'll agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know where this statue is located and whether it is a statue of Odoacer?
The section dealing with Odoacer's takeover of Italy has the following.
"Bury, however, disagrees that Odoacer's assumption of power marked the fall of the Roman Empire:
It stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the dismemberment of the Empire. It belongs to the same catalogue of chronological dates which includes A.D. 418, when Honorius settled the Goths in Aquitaine, and A.D. 435, when Valentinian ceded African lands to the Vandals. In A.D. 476 the same principle of disintegration was first applied to Italy. The settlement of Odovacar's East Germans, with Zeno's acquiescence, began the process by which Italian soil was to pass into the hands of Ostrogoths and Lombards, Franks and Normans. And Odovacar's title of king emphasised the significance of the change.[26] "
This does not sound like disagreement. Quite the contrary Bury is stating that it stands out as an important stage in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D944:B4C3:782F:727 ( talk) 17:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "a barbarian statesman" in the lead strikes me as decidedly odd if not oxymoronic. Perhaps something like "a putative Germanic leader" – ?? – Sca ( talk) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Old High German Hildebrandslied (9th c.) the name is attested as Otachre (dative singular) and Otachres (genitive singular), presumably belonging to a nominative singular *Otacher or *Otachar. Possibly relevant for the onomastics section, don't really have time to edit it in rn tho. — Mnemosientje ( t · c) 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Obenritter. Concerning this edit: [1]. I was making a distinction in my mind between "the multi-ethnic empire of Attila" and the Huns simply. In other words, within his empire there were Gepids, Goths, Scirii, Heruli, Rugians, lots of Alans, etc etc. So I was trying to say that it seems uncontroversial that his background was somewhere in that complex mass of peoples, which is an interesting fact. In fact three of the groups he is most associated with all ended-up living near each other in the Middle Danube area, when the dust settled.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
He spared the life of Romulus Augustulus due to his "youth and beauty". A 10 year old child hasn't grown to have beauty yet, so this seems odd. Was this part of the ancient view of love between men and boys? Are there other examples of his interest in young boys or is this an isolated occurrence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.187.161 ( talk) 05:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Obenritter, first, I am not sure if you are referring to me but I am not an IP user ( 2), and in any case, keep good faith and don't call anybody "untrustworthy" ( 1).
You have removed legit content I added without providing a valid reason for your actions. You could've at least checked what I added before removing it: Magill is not the author of Odoacer's entry in the dictionary of world biography, that is Glenn L. Swygart! ( [1]) as specified in the article: Professor Glenn L. Swygart, in his entry for Odoacer in the Dictionary of World Biography, accepted the suggestion that Odoacer's father was the Hun ambassador, who married into the Germanic tribe of the Sciri., yet you apparently thought that the author was Magill since, citing a reason for the removal, you stated: Magill characterized Odoacer's identity as "Danubian-Hunnic-German" / Remove other content added by untrustworthy IP edits ( 3). By the way, what the Dictionary of World Biography states is: [Odoacer's] father was Edeco (sometimes spelled Edica or Edecon), a Hun who served under the infamous Attila. [1]
You removed Amory claiming that he said something entirely different, not with unequivocal editorialized comment added here ( 4). Yet the articles states:
Historian Patrick Amory notes that Odocer's father was called a Hun, and his mother a Scirian, and that his father was firstly associated with the Huns and then with the Scirians
while Amory said, and I am quoting him:
Odoacer is called a Scirian, a Rugian, a Goth, or a Thuringian in sources; his father is called a Hun, his mother a Scirian. Odoacer's father Edeco was associated first with the Huns under Attila, and then with a group called Sciri, an ethnographic name that appears intermittently in the fifth-century sources. [2]
So how did Amory said something "entirely different" from what I wrote in the article?
Then, yes, the editor's comment (Krautschick [...] argues that his father was a Hun and his mother a Scirian, and therefore would omit Rugian, Goth and Thuringian as "assertions influenced by other factors") is used to back Krautschick. But not Amory. In other words, Amory's pov comes from the main text of the book.
This is a Cambridge University Press publishing, and it is perfectly fine to use its commentary as a secondary source to summarise and back Krautschick's pov.
You accused me of adding fictitious page numbers ( 5) which indicates that either you haven't checked the sources at all or you are making things up.
I added the content again, with quotes for the Dictionary of World Biography and Amory. If you have any other doubt about the sources, we can talk about it here. Giray Altay ( talk) 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Bruce Macbain, noting that the "ancient sources exhibit considerable confusion over Odovacer's tribal affiliation, identifying him variously as a Skirian, a Rogian and/or Torcilingian, a Herul, and even a Goth", subsequently concludes that "not a single source calls him [Odoacer] a Hun".[18] Historian Penny MacGeorge points out that the confusion about Odoacer's ethnicity is exaggerated. Believing that the Torcilingi were simply a mistake for Thuringii, she argues that the claims he was a Hun "can almost certainly be dismissed". She asserts instead that Odoacer was "surely Germanic, probably half-Scirian, half-Thuringian, and he may have had connections with other tribes through intermarriage".
Historian Peter Heather points out that although Edeco's name is surely Germanic, this does not mean he (Edeco) was necessarily Germanic; Heather nonetheless adds, "though he may have been
References
[Odoacer's] father was Edeco (sometimes spelled Edica or Edecon), a Hun who served under the infamous Attila.
Odoacer is called a Scirian, a Rugian, a Goth, or a Thuringian in sources; his father is called a Hun, his mother a Scirian. Odoacer's father Edeco was associated first with the Huns under Attila, and then with a group called Sciri, an athnographic name that appears intermittently in the fifth-century sources. [...] Krautschick [...] argues that his father was a Hun and his mother a Scirian, and therefore would omit Rugian, Goth and Thuringian as "assertions influenced by other factors"
The pronunication is listed as being Odoaser. However this is the (wrong) way modern English people pronounce it based on the way they pronounce 'ace' in their language.
His contemporary pronunciation would've been something like Odowaker. With the a of course being pronounced like a roman (normal) long a. As c's were pronounced as k's in this time (also Germanic never had the shift from the k to s sound that Vulgar Latin did have >later<).
This is also why people in English are 'awake' and not 'awase'. Yes, waking and waker are related words, which becomes only obvious when the name is pronounced CORRECTLY! Oldrik9 ( talk) 08:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
His son's name was Oklan - a real Turkish word Nowhere in the wiki world do we see the name Oklan as Odoacer's son. Everywhere is written only Thela. It would be so revealing if we knew that his son's name is Oklan. Oğlan/Oglan is quite a real Turkish word for "the boy" or "the son". It is definitely an indicator of Odoacer's origins. UzunbacakAdem ( talk) 10:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (discussion) 12:47, 12 Apr 2023 (CEST) Uzunbacak Adem
Kim cites "Ganshof 1971, 87" for the oghlan etymology. This is "Ganshof, F. L. (1971) The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History, trans. J. Sondheimer. Ithaca, NY." François Louis Ganshof was not a linguist. It's possible he got it from an actual linguist, if someone cares to check. But this sort of etymology and citation to an inadequate source is pretty much how Kim operates on these things. Whatever you think about his scholarship otherwise, he'd provide a citation that "George" is a Turkic name if a Hun were name that.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@ PhillyGamez: after your revert, WP:BRD. Please justify your bold edits where you make Romulus Augustulus a predecessor of Odoacer. Your first edsum implied Odoacer was emperor, which is not true. Your second edit implies Romulus was effective ruler of Italy, which is also not true. Aren't you comparing apples with pears here and stretching the English language too far? Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)