This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ostrogoths 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 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article puts Ermanaric's death in 378, while article on Ermanaric itself puts it between 370 and 376...
Did some of the Goths (specifically the Ostrogoths, of course) come from Norway too?
78.151.173.120 (
talk)
06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)It, definitely, then comes from Lithuanian language where greut means to make to lie 'on the ground' (in Lithuanian will be 'ant grindu') or to destroy/flatten and from the same root comes another Lithuanian word 'griovys' meaning a groove/ditch.
But the real meaning of Goths comes from another Lithuanian name for one Baltic tribe 'Gud-ai/Gaut-ai/Gaudyto-jai' and originates from the name for herd hunters/catchers. And Ostro in Lithuanian language simply means 'Ausros' (an aurora/dawn). By the way, from that word originates and the word 'astral', because the rising star (Venus, this name simply means that she is the only in the sky such, because in Lithuanian language 'vienas' means one, and the god of the hell is named 'Velnius') in Lithuania is called Ausrine/Austrine (like Prometey in Lithuanian language means 'pramatejes' the man who started to see the truth or light, it is almost identical to another Lithuanian word 'Budha' which means mentaly elucidated).
Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread and Philyp 'Pilypas=Paliepias' means the man giving orders...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents...The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making
Like Palace comes from Lithuanian 'pilis' meaning the castle on the artificial hill ('pilta' means poured by human hands and is the base word for the word spilt which in Lith. will be 'is-pilti'). And the Castle comes from the Lith. word kasti meaning 'to dig' a groove around your defensive palace.
Enjoy Lithuanian real Aryan (means 'arejai'=ploughmen and plough means 'plugas' and comes from 'plaukti' meaning to swim through the 'arid' land) language. 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I think that we should include something along the lines of what Cantor has to say on page 107, lines 28-39 and onwards till the end of the paragraph on the next page. In the article, currently, it mentions nothing about how Theodoric wanted "to resore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people". And also a crucial point to add is: "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the developmentof early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration.". So if we some how put those things into our own words I think it would be a decent contribution. In my oppinion, this furthers the understanding of the article. +SPQR 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should include Cantor's argument on page 109 lines 10-23. Religion was (and is) a very important part of cultures and I think this article could use some work in this particular area. Cantor makes a good point in showing that Theodoric did one thing that, until this time, (I believe) hadn't been done before. That is, he allowed "freedom of religion". He did try to appease to the pope (line 20). A very important part of this passage is when he says "he went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized the authority of the peope not only over the Catholic church but over the city of Rome". This was a bold implication and very true. If we could find a way to incorperate religion into the article a little bit more, I think that it would be helpful and a good contribution. XCluvr16 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a description of Theodoric's attempts at building up alliances and the effect it had on the Byzantine empire would be a worthwhile contribution. This would clear up some confusion about the sudden turning of the Byzantines and provide a reason for the rapid decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death, or at least something along those lines-- Gesundheit 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
I think that maybe something should be included under Zenith — Theodoric the Great about theodorics relgon and relationships with other religons. On page 109 line 8 on to the top of the next page it talks about how theodoric was arian and how he did all he could to please the catholic church.In the first paragraph it talks about theodorics arian religon, and the second paragraph talks about his relationshis with the pope. This is kinda around the same part you said rachel and I thouight that the part you were talking about (his allowance of other religons) was also a very important piece. -- Johnnybravo01 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you shiela and I think that I would be helpful to concider what Dewener and Gesundheit are saying. I dunno if we will/should put it in or not but I think that it would be worth considering. Shiela you and I were saying around the same thing but you added an important fact that I feel we should definately include which is the turning of the Byzantines and the decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death. This would also include what Gesundheit was saying (I think) ok im thinking that we should all be on around 7:30 tonight or so just so that we can talk and get this done...is that ok with everyone?
XCluvr16
17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I find any material pertaining to the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom completely lacking. The article discusses The "Zenith" and the reign of Theodoric, but in no way even considers possible reasons to it's collapse. I suggest a small section under "Zenith" that deals breifly with some of Theodoric's policies which cause the kingdom to collapse. Either in the main Ostrogothic article or in Ostrogothic this one more specifically pertaining to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. BB 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this line in the references section:
Who added this line? There is no such thing as "with permission" on Wikipedia. If this was added verbatim, and is copyright, it must be removed. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Would they require cleanup? 100110100 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the contents of Prehistory has any attested sources – it doesn't look like sourced fact, it rather looks like a qualified and plausible speculation, but then it should be presented as such. Rursus 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And sourced. Of course. Rursus 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we move this page back to Ostrogoths. Jacob Haller 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just signalling here that the Culture section is not about the Ostrogoths at all. Maybe somebody would be interested in fixing it. Srnec ( talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says in the intro, "The kingdom reached its highest point under King Ermanaric ... " Then only a few sentences later it says, "Ostrogothic power reached its zenith under the Romanised king Theodoric the Great ..." It can't reach it's highest point twice! So which one is it? This needs to be clarified. Jrdx ( talk) 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, the image at right was the lead image in this article. It was changed today to an image of Theodoric's mausoleum. I wouldn't have a problem with that if the photograph were of high quality, which it is not. I think the image of a contemporary mosaic depicting Theodoric's palace (albeit a mosaic tweaked by the Byzantines later) is still the better image for the lead. Srnec ( talk) 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no scholarly consensus on the idea that the 5th/6th century Ostrogoths are a continuation of the 3rd/4th century Greutungi. Peter Heather certainly trashes the idea, and I think Michael Kulikowski might also do so. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ammianus' histories include several sections about Roman dealings with the Goths. But they are mostly dealing with the Teruingi, not the Greutungi. One would expect to see some mention of the empire Ermaneric is supposed to have built, but it's not there. There is one mention of Ermaneric, but many scholars argue that the empire was a fabrication for Theodoric's propaganda, probably invented by Cassiodorus. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This person is a Seventh day Adventist minister, not a historian. As such, his opinion as to the fate of the Ostrogoths can not be considered a reliable source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In case none of you have ever taken the time to research this, much of this article is verbatim plagiarization from the following book: De Puy, William Harrison. The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer (vol. 4). New York: The Werner Co., 1899., which is freely accessible in its entirety from Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=qmpLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA2865&lpg=PA2865&dq=in+every+conceivable+relation+of+friendship+and+enmity+with+the+Eastern+Roman+power&source=bl&ots=WRPoyGo04n&sig=EVUFB_VmeYcZSyVMvFvCQQf1vQE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMIlYe1uYjkyAIVAygmCh3c6QjI#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is a mosaic with nothing on it. The byzantines removed the pictures of the Goths in the mosaic to stop them from appearing more "Roman" and moreover because they were Arianists. The current desc just says that it depicts Theoderic (which it did originally, but now it is just blank!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.40.128 ( talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I place this here for safe keeping. Anyone know if this can be sourced? The Ostrogoths were probably literate in the 3rd century, and their trade with the Romans was highly developed.
--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Obenritter thanks for your feedback and fixes. I notice one with a message (in red below) so I'll post an answer here.
The Ostrogoths were first mentioned only one hundred years later in 399, in a poem by [[Claudian]] which describes the Ostrogoths and Greuthungi inhabiting the land of [[Phrygia]] together, ready to be aroused by some small offense and return to their natural ways.{{sfn|Christensen|2002|pages=216–217}}{{efn|Wolfram uses Claudian's, ''Against Eutropius'', as his source here: [https://www.loebclassics.com/view/claudian_claudianus-eutropius/1922/pb_LCL135.197.xml]{{sfn|Wolfram|1988|pp=24, 387fn52}}}} Note Wolfram wrongly dates the poem to 392, though it was written after the death of [[Eutropius the consul|Eutropius (consul)]] (died 399).{{clarify|date=April 2020|reason=While this may be correct, this type of refutation of an established scholar requires academic substantiation. What other scholar claims this was written later and based on what exactly?{{efn|The poem associates this rebellious "[[Getic]] squadron (''alae'')" of Greuthungi in Phrygia with a leader it calls [[Tribigild|Tarbigilus]], who is also mentioned by [[Zosimus]] (as Tribigildus), also there mentioning his barbarian forces based in Phrygia and his rebellion against the eunuch consul Eutropius. He was an associate of [[Gainas]].}} |
Obenritter perhaps easier to note these issues raised in two edits [1] [2] here, and try to understand what is needed:
Smatterings of the Gothic language can be found in Italian but its presence is minimal.No source. Not an obvious comment at all. As far as I understand it, Germanic words in Italian are difficult to attribute to Gothic specifically? Is there a source for this?
A language related to Gothic was still spoken sporadically in Crimea as late as the 16th and 17th centuries ( Crimean Gothic language).{{sfn|Dalby|1999|p=229}}This is a complex subject which would need a bigger digression to do justice to it, for example on Gothic language. But more to the point it is not specifically relevant to Ostrogoths? The source being cited is not a specialist work for this topic, but a "Dictionary of Languages".
Much of the disappearance of the Gothic language is attributable to the Goths' cultural and linguistic absorption by other European peoples during the Middle Ages.{{sfn|Waldman|Mason|2006|p=572}}This is a vague sentence and it is apparently not specifically about Ostrogoths? Also this source is clearly not very "academic" but a tertiary work written by non-specialists. On other articles, Waldman and Mason have been a controversial source when used to state things not found in better sources, and also discussed on WP:RSN.
I will look at edit 1, but I think the 3 sentences under edit 2 need better justification.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
New paragraph has been added: There is some degree of surety among scholars that Jordanes penned the Sandza origin story based on oral tales, and so his efforts were undertaken to provide legitimacy to the stories, since Jordanes likely valued written over oral sources.[70][i]
The sfn footnote is to Ghosh 2015, pp. 52–53, referring to:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The efn footnote is Like the Scandza origins' tale, oral stories provided the framework for the genealogy of the Amal kings recorded by Jordanes.[71]
and this is citing Ghosh 2015, p. 53–54. Can someone help make it clear how this source says what we are reporting? As far as I can see, like our other sources for modern commentary on Jordanes, Heather, Christensen etc, Ghosh is showing how Jordanes (and Cassiodorus) seems to prefer written sources? For example:
"In terms of explicit references to oral sources, therefore, Jordanes gives us very little, and what we find in the Getica in this regard is of dubious value."
The "oral narrative" Ghosh refers to on p.52 is explicitly the special case Jordanes himself mentions as WRONG, and which Goffart writes about at length, comparing it to a remark by Procopius. There was gossip, Jordanes says, that the Goths were once led into slavery in Britain or some such northern island (Scandza also being one). Ghosh writes concerning Jordanes and Scandza:
it is clear that here, as elsewhere, Jordanes is making an appeal to the authority of written sources [] he seems to contrast it with oral material that is not to be trusted.
So it almost seems like Ghosh says the opposite of what we are reporting? (By the way, "surety" is not really a good word choice here. It has one common meaning, which would not fit here, and although it is sometimes used in a different way, I think most readers and editors who are familiar with the word would find it jarring.) -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits to this page included adding the term "Nazi scholar" in front of Franz Altheim's name. Such a connotation would apply to hundreds, if not thousands of academics who researched and taught during the Nazi period. Altheim wrote his dissertation well before the Nazis came to power, and while he was dismissed for a time, was reinstated and taught at the Frei Universität in Berlin into the 1960s. We do not categorize other scholars by their political party (if but temporarily) anywhere on Wikipedia, but by their nation of origin. While the argument that Altheim contributed research that some might categorize as pseudo-archaeological, since he argues for deeper connections between the Germanic peoples and Rome; this does not justify explicitly calling him a Nazi scholar. An informational note could be added for further elucidation, especially since Altheim has a Wikipage of his own -- which would be a much better place for additional elaboration about this. The way it is used in the text in connection with Professor Wolfram makes him into a pariah, against which I object. Dr. Wolfram may have appropriated a few parts of Altheim's theories, but rest assured it was not without ample scholarly justification or contemporary insights.-- Obenritter ( talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ostrogoths 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 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article puts Ermanaric's death in 378, while article on Ermanaric itself puts it between 370 and 376...
Did some of the Goths (specifically the Ostrogoths, of course) come from Norway too?
78.151.173.120 (
talk)
06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)It, definitely, then comes from Lithuanian language where greut means to make to lie 'on the ground' (in Lithuanian will be 'ant grindu') or to destroy/flatten and from the same root comes another Lithuanian word 'griovys' meaning a groove/ditch.
But the real meaning of Goths comes from another Lithuanian name for one Baltic tribe 'Gud-ai/Gaut-ai/Gaudyto-jai' and originates from the name for herd hunters/catchers. And Ostro in Lithuanian language simply means 'Ausros' (an aurora/dawn). By the way, from that word originates and the word 'astral', because the rising star (Venus, this name simply means that she is the only in the sky such, because in Lithuanian language 'vienas' means one, and the god of the hell is named 'Velnius') in Lithuania is called Ausrine/Austrine (like Prometey in Lithuanian language means 'pramatejes' the man who started to see the truth or light, it is almost identical to another Lithuanian word 'Budha' which means mentaly elucidated).
Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread and Philyp 'Pilypas=Paliepias' means the man giving orders...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents...The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making
Like Palace comes from Lithuanian 'pilis' meaning the castle on the artificial hill ('pilta' means poured by human hands and is the base word for the word spilt which in Lith. will be 'is-pilti'). And the Castle comes from the Lith. word kasti meaning 'to dig' a groove around your defensive palace.
Enjoy Lithuanian real Aryan (means 'arejai'=ploughmen and plough means 'plugas' and comes from 'plaukti' meaning to swim through the 'arid' land) language. 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I think that we should include something along the lines of what Cantor has to say on page 107, lines 28-39 and onwards till the end of the paragraph on the next page. In the article, currently, it mentions nothing about how Theodoric wanted "to resore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people". And also a crucial point to add is: "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the developmentof early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration.". So if we some how put those things into our own words I think it would be a decent contribution. In my oppinion, this furthers the understanding of the article. +SPQR 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should include Cantor's argument on page 109 lines 10-23. Religion was (and is) a very important part of cultures and I think this article could use some work in this particular area. Cantor makes a good point in showing that Theodoric did one thing that, until this time, (I believe) hadn't been done before. That is, he allowed "freedom of religion". He did try to appease to the pope (line 20). A very important part of this passage is when he says "he went through a ceremony that implied that he recognized the authority of the peope not only over the Catholic church but over the city of Rome". This was a bold implication and very true. If we could find a way to incorperate religion into the article a little bit more, I think that it would be helpful and a good contribution. XCluvr16 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think a description of Theodoric's attempts at building up alliances and the effect it had on the Byzantine empire would be a worthwhile contribution. This would clear up some confusion about the sudden turning of the Byzantines and provide a reason for the rapid decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death, or at least something along those lines-- Gesundheit 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC).
I think that maybe something should be included under Zenith — Theodoric the Great about theodorics relgon and relationships with other religons. On page 109 line 8 on to the top of the next page it talks about how theodoric was arian and how he did all he could to please the catholic church.In the first paragraph it talks about theodorics arian religon, and the second paragraph talks about his relationshis with the pope. This is kinda around the same part you said rachel and I thouight that the part you were talking about (his allowance of other religons) was also a very important piece. -- Johnnybravo01 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you shiela and I think that I would be helpful to concider what Dewener and Gesundheit are saying. I dunno if we will/should put it in or not but I think that it would be worth considering. Shiela you and I were saying around the same thing but you added an important fact that I feel we should definately include which is the turning of the Byzantines and the decline of the kingdom after Theodoric's death. This would also include what Gesundheit was saying (I think) ok im thinking that we should all be on around 7:30 tonight or so just so that we can talk and get this done...is that ok with everyone?
XCluvr16
17:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I find any material pertaining to the fall of the Ostrogothic Kingdom completely lacking. The article discusses The "Zenith" and the reign of Theodoric, but in no way even considers possible reasons to it's collapse. I suggest a small section under "Zenith" that deals breifly with some of Theodoric's policies which cause the kingdom to collapse. Either in the main Ostrogothic article or in Ostrogothic this one more specifically pertaining to the Ostrogothic Kingdom. BB 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this line in the references section:
Who added this line? There is no such thing as "with permission" on Wikipedia. If this was added verbatim, and is copyright, it must be removed. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Would they require cleanup? 100110100 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the contents of Prehistory has any attested sources – it doesn't look like sourced fact, it rather looks like a qualified and plausible speculation, but then it should be presented as such. Rursus 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And sourced. Of course. Rursus 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we move this page back to Ostrogoths. Jacob Haller 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just signalling here that the Culture section is not about the Ostrogoths at all. Maybe somebody would be interested in fixing it. Srnec ( talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says in the intro, "The kingdom reached its highest point under King Ermanaric ... " Then only a few sentences later it says, "Ostrogothic power reached its zenith under the Romanised king Theodoric the Great ..." It can't reach it's highest point twice! So which one is it? This needs to be clarified. Jrdx ( talk) 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, the image at right was the lead image in this article. It was changed today to an image of Theodoric's mausoleum. I wouldn't have a problem with that if the photograph were of high quality, which it is not. I think the image of a contemporary mosaic depicting Theodoric's palace (albeit a mosaic tweaked by the Byzantines later) is still the better image for the lead. Srnec ( talk) 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no scholarly consensus on the idea that the 5th/6th century Ostrogoths are a continuation of the 3rd/4th century Greutungi. Peter Heather certainly trashes the idea, and I think Michael Kulikowski might also do so. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ammianus' histories include several sections about Roman dealings with the Goths. But they are mostly dealing with the Teruingi, not the Greutungi. One would expect to see some mention of the empire Ermaneric is supposed to have built, but it's not there. There is one mention of Ermaneric, but many scholars argue that the empire was a fabrication for Theodoric's propaganda, probably invented by Cassiodorus. 71.191.233.216 ( talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This person is a Seventh day Adventist minister, not a historian. As such, his opinion as to the fate of the Ostrogoths can not be considered a reliable source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In case none of you have ever taken the time to research this, much of this article is verbatim plagiarization from the following book: De Puy, William Harrison. The World-wide Encyclopedia and Gazetteer (vol. 4). New York: The Werner Co., 1899., which is freely accessible in its entirety from Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=qmpLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA2865&lpg=PA2865&dq=in+every+conceivable+relation+of+friendship+and+enmity+with+the+Eastern+Roman+power&source=bl&ots=WRPoyGo04n&sig=EVUFB_VmeYcZSyVMvFvCQQf1vQE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMIlYe1uYjkyAIVAygmCh3c6QjI#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is a mosaic with nothing on it. The byzantines removed the pictures of the Goths in the mosaic to stop them from appearing more "Roman" and moreover because they were Arianists. The current desc just says that it depicts Theoderic (which it did originally, but now it is just blank!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.40.128 ( talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I place this here for safe keeping. Anyone know if this can be sourced? The Ostrogoths were probably literate in the 3rd century, and their trade with the Romans was highly developed.
--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Obenritter thanks for your feedback and fixes. I notice one with a message (in red below) so I'll post an answer here.
The Ostrogoths were first mentioned only one hundred years later in 399, in a poem by [[Claudian]] which describes the Ostrogoths and Greuthungi inhabiting the land of [[Phrygia]] together, ready to be aroused by some small offense and return to their natural ways.{{sfn|Christensen|2002|pages=216–217}}{{efn|Wolfram uses Claudian's, ''Against Eutropius'', as his source here: [https://www.loebclassics.com/view/claudian_claudianus-eutropius/1922/pb_LCL135.197.xml]{{sfn|Wolfram|1988|pp=24, 387fn52}}}} Note Wolfram wrongly dates the poem to 392, though it was written after the death of [[Eutropius the consul|Eutropius (consul)]] (died 399).{{clarify|date=April 2020|reason=While this may be correct, this type of refutation of an established scholar requires academic substantiation. What other scholar claims this was written later and based on what exactly?{{efn|The poem associates this rebellious "[[Getic]] squadron (''alae'')" of Greuthungi in Phrygia with a leader it calls [[Tribigild|Tarbigilus]], who is also mentioned by [[Zosimus]] (as Tribigildus), also there mentioning his barbarian forces based in Phrygia and his rebellion against the eunuch consul Eutropius. He was an associate of [[Gainas]].}} |
Obenritter perhaps easier to note these issues raised in two edits [1] [2] here, and try to understand what is needed:
Smatterings of the Gothic language can be found in Italian but its presence is minimal.No source. Not an obvious comment at all. As far as I understand it, Germanic words in Italian are difficult to attribute to Gothic specifically? Is there a source for this?
A language related to Gothic was still spoken sporadically in Crimea as late as the 16th and 17th centuries ( Crimean Gothic language).{{sfn|Dalby|1999|p=229}}This is a complex subject which would need a bigger digression to do justice to it, for example on Gothic language. But more to the point it is not specifically relevant to Ostrogoths? The source being cited is not a specialist work for this topic, but a "Dictionary of Languages".
Much of the disappearance of the Gothic language is attributable to the Goths' cultural and linguistic absorption by other European peoples during the Middle Ages.{{sfn|Waldman|Mason|2006|p=572}}This is a vague sentence and it is apparently not specifically about Ostrogoths? Also this source is clearly not very "academic" but a tertiary work written by non-specialists. On other articles, Waldman and Mason have been a controversial source when used to state things not found in better sources, and also discussed on WP:RSN.
I will look at edit 1, but I think the 3 sentences under edit 2 need better justification.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
New paragraph has been added: There is some degree of surety among scholars that Jordanes penned the Sandza origin story based on oral tales, and so his efforts were undertaken to provide legitimacy to the stories, since Jordanes likely valued written over oral sources.[70][i]
The sfn footnote is to Ghosh 2015, pp. 52–53, referring to:
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The efn footnote is Like the Scandza origins' tale, oral stories provided the framework for the genealogy of the Amal kings recorded by Jordanes.[71]
and this is citing Ghosh 2015, p. 53–54. Can someone help make it clear how this source says what we are reporting? As far as I can see, like our other sources for modern commentary on Jordanes, Heather, Christensen etc, Ghosh is showing how Jordanes (and Cassiodorus) seems to prefer written sources? For example:
"In terms of explicit references to oral sources, therefore, Jordanes gives us very little, and what we find in the Getica in this regard is of dubious value."
The "oral narrative" Ghosh refers to on p.52 is explicitly the special case Jordanes himself mentions as WRONG, and which Goffart writes about at length, comparing it to a remark by Procopius. There was gossip, Jordanes says, that the Goths were once led into slavery in Britain or some such northern island (Scandza also being one). Ghosh writes concerning Jordanes and Scandza:
it is clear that here, as elsewhere, Jordanes is making an appeal to the authority of written sources [] he seems to contrast it with oral material that is not to be trusted.
So it almost seems like Ghosh says the opposite of what we are reporting? (By the way, "surety" is not really a good word choice here. It has one common meaning, which would not fit here, and although it is sometimes used in a different way, I think most readers and editors who are familiar with the word would find it jarring.) -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits to this page included adding the term "Nazi scholar" in front of Franz Altheim's name. Such a connotation would apply to hundreds, if not thousands of academics who researched and taught during the Nazi period. Altheim wrote his dissertation well before the Nazis came to power, and while he was dismissed for a time, was reinstated and taught at the Frei Universität in Berlin into the 1960s. We do not categorize other scholars by their political party (if but temporarily) anywhere on Wikipedia, but by their nation of origin. While the argument that Altheim contributed research that some might categorize as pseudo-archaeological, since he argues for deeper connections between the Germanic peoples and Rome; this does not justify explicitly calling him a Nazi scholar. An informational note could be added for further elucidation, especially since Altheim has a Wikipage of his own -- which would be a much better place for additional elaboration about this. The way it is used in the text in connection with Professor Wolfram makes him into a pariah, against which I object. Dr. Wolfram may have appropriated a few parts of Altheim's theories, but rest assured it was not without ample scholarly justification or contemporary insights.-- Obenritter ( talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)