Talk:Germania

message: This section states that Several modern languages use the name "Germania" including...French (Allemagne), Spanish (Alemania) but these two are not actually based on the word Germania, they are based on the word Alamanni which was a Germanic tribe nation. You can read the details on the Alamanni article on the fifth paragraph and on Names of Germany on the Names from Alemanni section. Maybe the other languages on that statement might need to be checked too.
:The others checks out. I have removed the two wrongly inserted names. You are welcome to remove such obvious errors yourself if you stumble upon them in future. If you remember to use the edit summary when fixing them, I highly doubt anyone would object. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern use section 

message: Do you think this should this become a redirect - or a disambiguation page, given the alternate meaning - pointing to Gaius Cornelius Tacitus#Germania? Were it not for the external links, there’d be no reason to keep a separate article on this topic (given its current length). Even the EL section, however, can be merged with that of the Tacitus article. -- Itai 02:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not. There are lengthy books about Tacitus' Germania, some of which I have read; I've split it off into Germania (book) and will work on expanding it. —No-One Jones 03:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Well, how about writing an article about the geographical area 'Germania' as described by the Romans (especially Tacitus) as is being done on the Danish article on da:Germania e.g.? Fedor 11:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germania as geographical area? 

message: I'm assuming this section is some kind of joke and so should be removed?LilacPhonograph 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnold Monkeynator 

message: Are Gepidi, venedi and others east showen regians Germans??? They are Balts :P Zordsdavini 13:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what do you base this? The names and probable place of origin seems more Germanic to me (Gepids). Krastain 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it? 

message: In my version of Tacitus' Agricola & Germania, the latin word "Germania" is translated with "Germany". Should I use "Germania" or "Germany" for my history paper? I know that Germany obviously didn't exist at the time, but I read at dict.leo.org's discussion site that "Germany" is commonly used to translate "Germania" from latin. 66.194.72.243 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the perspective of your paper. If you are writing about ancient times, I would use "Germania" because the use of "Germany" will instill a picture in the readers mind about modern day Germany, which is vastly different than ancient Germania in both geographic scope and inhabitants. It just helps keep the idea from becoming convoluted. Anable 17:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany/Germania

message: It marks Denmark with Jutland as Germania. That's a fault. I will remove tho picture if no sources for that is provided --Arigato1 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fault in the map 

message: the quote is not original or distorted.
Neighbors of the Celts, the Germans inhabit the land to the east of the Rhine river. They differ only little from the Celtic people, are a bit wilder, a bit larger and blonder, but nevertheless resemble the Celts in appearance , nature and way of living. Therefore, I think, the Romans gave them the name (germanicus celti). They wanted to describe them as "true" Gauls (Celts). For in the Roman language "Germans" (germanicus) means "the true ones".
I tryed some phrases the last one  and google = 0.
In contrast the Tacitus is found  
Is it free hand translation ? I doubt Strabo wrote about Germans :). "the Germans inhabit the land" Nasz 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strabo 

message: This article isnt a joke by any means. And it isnt a geographical article either, so it shouldnt be merged with the Germania article. Its about European culture afer the fall of Rome, and the Roman influence on the Germans, resulting in the Romano German culture of the Holy Roman Empire. The early parts of the article explain the long history between the Romans and Germans and the slow Romanization of the Germans mostly through Germans in the legions, and after the fall, Roman German marriages. --ProfMozart 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ProfMozart is referring to his pet article Romano German. There is a template there suggesting that it might be merged with Germania. I believe the article has no business on Wikipedia, but the input of other editors would be most welcome. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Article 

message: Arigato1 mentioned a map that marks Denmark incorrectly.  When there are maps and illustrations removed from Wikipedia, where are they put? OR, are they just deleted?
genealogyjohn 12:31 05 June 2010 (CST)
: I tink the first map of Germania is relevant for this article. Only with this, every can see one of the early European cities.--88.73.177.139 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on removed maps 

message: Why does the English speaking world refer to the country as Germany instead of Deutschland? Is Deutschland too hard for them to pronounce?108.23.147.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of Germany in English and some other languages are derived from "Germania", though the country's own inhabitants call it "Deutschland". 

message: Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at  the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii).
Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day  Czech Republic
Furgisatis u České Budějovice
Meliodunum in the sand
Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany 
Casurgis u Prahy
Redintuinum u Loun
Nomisterium in Litoměřice
Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav
Budorgis in Cologne
Coridorgis in Jihlava
Eburum u Hrádku Znojmo, East of
Parienna in Breclav
Eburodunum u Brno
Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov
Felicia u Vyškova
Asanca u Kojetína
Carredunum in Rýmařov
I have supplyed many links below to verify.
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html
http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf.
Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two  gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century. 
Casurgis from Australia is watching  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.240.50 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek empire from 2nd century onwards not not exist it was Roman colony.  Germania Magna was Poland and Czech Republic look at maps 

message: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zQoXa-hriJUI.kR6FMEHv0kuY - Germania Magna!
http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm
http://www.britannica.com/place/Lower-Saxony
http://www.ggsmn.org/cpage.php?pt=35
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zQoXa-hriJUI.kR6FMEHv0kuY -See this map its based on 2nd century Ptolemy's maps with modern markers. Look at the green markers every one is in a country called "Germania Magna" there was none of your aledged Saxon stories. Atilla the Hun went up the Danube and then the Rhine in the 5th century. You know located in Austria, German and he was killed in present day France on the Rhine in 454.
Casurgis 18 July 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.160.55 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist people look on the maps and names. Present day Czech Republic was part of Germania magna 

message: Is there a better source we can use for the size and population of Germania than Engels? Not that there's anything wrong with Engels, but this source is almost 150 years old and estimates have surely been revised since then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.109.62 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better source for size and population than Engels 

message: The article was top-heavy, and the lead had much information not contained anywhere in the body. I've reorganized the lead so that it adheres to WP:LEAD and better summarizes the article.  The first step was simply to add two new section headers, #Extent and #Population and move detailed material out of the Lead, and into the two new sections without adding any new text at all.   Second step was to modify the new Lead to briefly summarize the moved information, as well as to add to the lead a summary of information from the #History and Etymology sections which was previously absent.
The flow of the new Lead is still a little choppy and could use some copy-editing to smooth the rough edges, but it's both tighter as well as more representative than before, and does a better job of introducing and summarizing the article, especially for someone who might not read any further than the lead itself. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reorg: made a series of edits which are more about section naming and hierarchy than new content in order to tighten up the article organization and make it more coherent and clear.  We now have new a H2 section container #Terminology: it holds pre-existing sections #Origins of the term (now renamed #Etymology) and #Modern use (now #Modern usage) which have become subsections of #Terminology.  Sections #Population and #Roman conquests are now subsections under existing section #History. Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized the lead 

message: Currently the article includes the following: " According to Friedrich Engels in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (first published in 1884) Germania covered an area of  and had a population of 5,000,000 in the 1st century BC."
I would like to excise this claim, which is unacceptable for the following reasons:
# Engels was not an expert on the subject of ancient populations even at the time when he wrote, and he is thoroughly out-dated now, predating almost all archaeological work in Germania, as well as the large scholarship on methodological issues with ancient demography that has grown up in the last 140 years (which emphasises, for example, the unreliability of numbers found in ancient literary sources. In this scholarship even the population of very well attested places like Athens and Rome is heavily disputed). 
# The way Engels reaches the numbers he gives is completely baseless: "Now the Germania Magna [Greater Germany] of the Romans, which reached as far as the Vistula, had an area of 500,000 square kilometres in round figures. Reckoning the average number of each people at 100,000, the total population of Germania Magna would work out at 5,000,000 - a considerable figure for a barbarian group of peoples, but, compared with our conditions ten persons to the square kilometer, or about 550 to the geographical square mile - extremely low." That is, he just plucks numbers out of the air without any justification at all. 
# There is no ancient evidence for the population of ancient Germania. The inhabitants produced no literary accounts and the Romans were in no position to go around counting people. No Roman source even claims to offer the population of Germany.  
Furius (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I agree. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: concerning this edit , sorry for the revert. There were several different changes to the lead. Some clearly bring in potential controversies and do not yet reflect what is in the article body. 
* IMHO this bit reads like an answer to something in a debate, but as a sentence in a lead it is unclear what readers should understand from it. Also I see no reason to state that Germania was also semi-nomadic, nor that the Hunnic or Gothic peoples were good examples of the typical historical inhabitants.
*. This implies that there was some other group of people who had a more correct way of defining Germania. I don't think we know that, or that scholars think that. I think it was a Roman concept, so they could define it how they liked. (There is a question about whether they had only one clear definition, but that is another discussion, and we've broken up the topic in a certain way between several articles to try to address that.)
*One sentence which probably could be further improved (but see extensive discussions above) is  but can I suggest proposing here first? In general also remember the lead should reflect what is sourced and in the body. By my understanding, this sentence is referring readers to the populations who likely spoke a Germanic language, such as the Suevians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on reverted edit 

message: I suggest that this sentence by you is clearly correct: Therefore this one is not:  I think the second one is about another word, Germani? Did Tacitus use the term "self-invented"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also not sure Germania Libera is really a classical term?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation of Germania by Alfred John Church says that it was a "self-invented name". Given the uncertainty of whether Germania Libera is a classical term, i have now mostly replaced it with Magna Germania. Krakkos (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does. Hmmm. I do not call myself a Latin expert, but I don't see that in the Latin and here is the newer online Loeb translation https://www.loebclassics.com/view/tacitus-germania/1914/pb_LCL035.133.xml . Tacitus can be read as saying that the name was invented by the Tungri, but not by the Germani more generally as later understood. (I believe this little passage is one of the most written about of all short passages in Latin texts. I think there are other respectable interpretations. I wonder if he meant that the application of the name to non-Tungri was what was artificial/invented, and done in order to scare Gauls. This is what I see in Dutch translations and commentaries.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it makes much of a difference whether we use an 1876 translation or a 1914 translation. Alfred John Church, the maker of the 1876 translation hosted at Wikisource, was Professor of Latin at University College London. Maurice Hutton, the apparent maker of the 1914 translation hosted at the Loeb Classical Library, was Professor of Greek at the University of Toronto. Germania was written by Tacitus in Latin. Wikisource is more accessible and easier to use than the Loeb Classical Library version. For these reasons, i prefer the Alfred John Church translation. Krakkos (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is [sometimes] a good reason not to use translations from that period, and that is because translators of that period deliberately didn't translate literally. I am not so concerned about the use of old translations normally of course, but you have specifically chosen to emphasize specific words that don't come from the Latin, and don't match most translations or commentaries. Does that not make sense? In practice I am not asking you to change translation citation, but I feel pretty strongly that we can't use those words from the translation to make a statement of fact. Better to use secondary sources for non-obvious interpretational points. [EDITED]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made minor tweaks that I think resolve this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes on today's edits 

message: In Tacitus' conception of Germania it also includes what we nowadays call southern Scandinavia. Should really the northern border be conflated with that of northern Germany in this article?-Berig (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was the only one to do that, so I'd suggest not mentioning the northern boundary in the lead. He also called all the Scandinavians Suebians. As a more general issue, the 4 or so writers who mentioned this concept in classical times all defined it differently. BTW for Tacitus this Germania did not stretch all the way to the Danube either, nor to the sources of the Rhine (which lie south of the Danube).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Both Tacitus (98 AD) and Ptolemy (150 AD) appear to consider southern Sweden part of Germania. They definately considered modern-day Denmark a part of Germania. Archaeologically, southern Scandinavia was part of the Roman Iron Age, which corresponds to the area called Magna Germania by the Romans. Malcolm Todd provides extensive coverage of Scandinavia in The Early Germans (2004). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Roman Germany (2020) appears to consider Scandinavia part of Germania. I agree that we should not conflate the northern borders of Germania with northern Germany. Krakkos (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the archaeological data to define Germania would move us a long way from talking about a classical concept looks a bit synthy? I don't want to take too strong a position on that so I'll just generalize. Sometimes an argument can be made, but we don't want to be the ones making it, so where it is fuzzy we should consider whether we can avoid using strong language, especially in the lead. As articles get longer then of course details of more specific published proposals can be added in the body and potentially the lead, but everything in the lead should be in the body first? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern extension

message: I can understand you work as a team, but I cannot accept your actions.
You have left me with little room for discussion: The current article is in a flux and the revised text is specifically rejected, in an ambigious way that does not make it obvious what you consider wrong. If it be the language, or the article structure, then surely it is insufficient to use just these general statements to reject the revised text?
I can understand you work as a team, the way you do, because of the character of what I write on the talk-page and in the article-space. Just like I was struck dumbfounded when looking at the talk-page on 3 September at around 10 o'clock, I can easily imagine that you were dumbstruck when looking at the talkpage on the morning of 24 July. We both, you as a team and me as a single contributor, have our modes of practice.
This is humanely fair, but still your actions are unfair, both from the aspect of considering the importance of namespace 0 and from the aspect of considering the importance of community communications. I have been civil, honest and showed engagement with the particulars of the article content, and you have shown uncivility, especially pretense, and your engagement with the problematic details of content-related issues is affected by this, including your intra-team engagement with namespace 0. Sechinsic (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to join in the discussion. I would appreciate your input on the content being added. I think the other editors are focusing on style improvements etc which did not go so well in your proposals so far, but I think your interest was more concerning the content anyway, so maybe this is a good way to divide tasks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Who or what is "namespace 0"? I have not heard about this before. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tribe of Tiger, he's misusing a template documentation term. At first glance, I thought he was talking about something related to Deep Space Nine. Carlstak (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do thank you for the link, but to me, the info stated there is bizarre and incomprehensible, rather like Klingon. If "It helps other templates detect what type of page they are on" I am happy for said templates, and will leave them to detect in peace and privacy. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikistyle academia