Talk:Migration Period

message: Sorry all, but this page is truly awful. You all know how competiting interests squabbling over the Roman inheritance destroyed what was left of it, and between you you've done the same to this page. Maybe you'll see the irony of that. 
Wikipedia is not a self-publishing house for your own mini-theses, but that's what this page has become. Some if it is written in idiotically minute detail, while other, far more significant facts are missed out altogether. There is no flow to the story. The writing in some places is so turgid that no reader who is not an expert will understand even a quarter of it. 
The map is misleading and the chronological diagram defies understanding. 
A sensitive editor could do something about it, but I'm not sure you'd let him. Patrick Neylan (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is pretty bad, especially given its importance. The text is more or less coherent (though, as you point out, there's stuff missing) until the "Modern Discourse" section at which point it goes way down hill. At that point, it basically reads like somebody's annotated bibliography for a high school paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is surely that the top sections are so short & stubby. Undergraduate paper, surely? Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed ... things seem to go missing on Wiki far too easily in my opinion.  Perhaps the powers that be could make previous versions accessible  (as well as these spawning redirects and merges here) LookingGlass (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally everything is available via the history tab - that goes for your map below (or you might try categories here or on commons for that). Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squabbling over the page has destroyed it 

message: I was searching for a map I found on Wiki that described Mass Migrations  ...  has it been edited? It looked ALMOST identical to the ones here.  I remember it showed also both Goth migrations South into Germany, and South-West into Denmark.  But those lines are not on the maps here.  The "modern" one seems to be a rendering of the one of German origin, so now seems to me rudundant.  Can anyone shed any light?? LookingGlass (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps and strategic clean-up 

message: I've removed the reference to the Jack Palance 1960 film "The Barbarians", as according to the relevant article, Revak the Rebel, this was about Romans and Carthaginians; nothing to do with the Barbarian migrations of this article.  Rojomoke (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depictions in Media 

message: "The Germanic peoples came out of southern Scandinavia, Denmark and the adjacent lands between the Elbe and Oder rivers, some time after 1000 BCE. The first wave moved westward and southward, pushing the resident Celts west to the Rhine River by about 200 BCE, and moving into southern Germany and against the Roman province of Gaul by 100 BCE, where they were stopped first by Gaius Marius and then Julius Caesar."
Someone pointed this out to me.
Assuming the editor of this knew when Julius Caesar lived, these two sentences cover a millennium, which is highly unencyclopaedic.
However, the section is titled ORIGINS of the Germanic tribes, not their movements, which would presumably be the rest of the article. So in fact the ORIGINS are covered by one unreferenced and highly dubious sentence.
Lets consider this logically.
in the The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment, Robert C. Ostergren and  Mathias Le Bossé say (p.80) that by 400 BCE the population in Europe reached 20 million. Over the next 200 years the population in Greece declined from 3 to 2 million while population in what is now modern Italy rose from 4 to 7 million. Does this mean that the other significant group in Europe, the Celts, constituted 13 million c.400BCE? 
And what of the Greeks and Etruscans? They had no inkling of the massive population supposedly residing in Scandinavia? The Scandinavians never before ventured south in the millennium since the Greeks themselves arrived in the Balkans? 
Are there any archaeological insights into these questions that can be gleaned from sources? 220.238.41.130 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the Germanic Tribes 

message: It seems that in this period, and at least up to Genghis Khan's Mongol conquests, the advantage in battle was more to the primitive people and less to the civilized than typically in history.  Perhaps agricultural methods (to breed large healthy armies), steal making and forging, and such were already widely distributed and new advantages of civilization such as strong and large fortifications and new weapons had not yet come.  David R. Ingham (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: War technology and such

message: Moved from a 2008 section above: Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help thinking that if we are going to re-use citations from the German-language article, someone should check what they say. I have imported one or two articles from the German Wikipedia myself, but my approach is generally to leave out material from sources I can't see and to look for ones I can. Quite often, of course, the English language sources are more accessible than the German ones. Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft translation from German article

message: http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C
http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial
Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the so called Migration Period. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8kn from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first entered Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic point of view 

message: thumb|right|100 px|Turnip
Napus or beets are much older crops in the Nordic countries than rye, and turnip (lanttu) is a modern mutation (Ahokas 2004). Ahokas H. 2004, On the evolution, spread and names of rutabaga II Interdisciplinary Biology, Agriculture, Linguistics and Antiquities I, Helsinki. 2006, Naked (nud)
The people of Ultima Thule grew root vegetables (napus), writes Pytheas ca. 330 BC. When Tacitus describes "agrestia poma" (field fruits) to the Germans, it is napus (Tacitus 23), and this also applies to "fruges" that must be stored in underground caverns to avoid freezing (Tacitus 16).
Many of the napus variants are found as weeds up in northern Scandinavia, and they are old, hardy, and good food crops. They were common when the rye came into use, and they were often planted together with rye (Hyltén-Cavallius 1942 102-108). Hylten-Cavallius G.O. 1942, En student upptacker sitt land 1835,Stockholm.
Rye did not grow wild like weeds in the Nordic countries. It probably came to North East Europe as impurities in emmerwheat (farro) and partly in einkorn and outs, and are processed and domesticated through the years here in the north (Ahokas 2009 19). 
--Svedjebruk (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the main food supply?  

message: Should the issue with ancient China have their section here?  They had migration/invasion of their own during the ~300CE period.  The Five Hu = Xiong Nu, Xianbei, Di, Qiang, and Jie.  Same issues similar to what Roman Empire faced.  Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They too must have had 'peaceful' immigrants come to settle in their lands and culturally enrich them like with what happened to the Romans. 
OldBolshevik (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese area - their migration probelm 

message: Also fix your mythical Migration Period. 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 is Prague,
Redintuinum u Loun,
Nomisterium in Litoměřice,
Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav,
Budorgis in Cologne,
Coridorgis in Jihlava,
Eburum u Hrádku is Znojmo, 
Parienna in Breclav,
Eburodunum is Brno,
Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov,
Felicia is Vyškova,
Asanca is Kojetína,
Carredunum is 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
12.07.2014 And yes I am part English. The Mythicial Saxons are from here:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm and:http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/lang/english/history-politics/history/ . You still believe that there was a mass migration??. All your old documents from 5th century in Britannia where in Latin and you where mostly Christians. Germania Magna where Pagans as even your Danish vikings were:http://denmark.dk/en/society/history/ to the late 10th century. Remember your King Alfred from the 8th century went to Rome to be crowned king. Forgive me i was not taught this at school but at least I am capable to still learn and educate myself. Thou knows nothing!. Casurgis out  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.240.50 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxons are from Saxony. Why don't you go to a german webiste and find your Germanic tribes http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm MYTHICAL 

message: Currently the article lists at least 3 seperate date ranges the migration period happened in. It'd be great if someone could iron those out into one comprehensive date so the article agrees with itself. (For reference, the two dates in the beginning paragraph and the date in the image at the top right of the article don't agree. Someone would have to edit the image with photoshop or something like that.) Wanderlust15 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Range?  

message: Shouldn't the title be Migration period with lower case p?  --Hordaland (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so , because the lower-case title would indicate an article about any & all periods of much migration anywhere in the world, whereas this one is about a particular period in parts of Europe: Noyster  (talk),  11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, good I didn't change it then.  --Hordaland (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration Period 

message: The 'traditionskern' theory is presented there as a current, valid thesis, but it very much isn't - it has been discarded for the simple reason that there isn't actually any evidence for it. Unfortunately, the best citation I have for this is a draft of a paper from an old professor, who retired before publication, so I'm not really comfortable sticking it in the notes. So I want to flag this for anybody looking to clean up the page. If I stumble across a usable reference, I'll do it myself.
The reason this page is such a mess is that there is no real historical consensus about who the groups our literary sources define as 'Goth' or 'Vandal' really were, other than that those labels are reductive. It is difficult to say where they came from, what the nature of these groups were, or how they identified. There are a lot of theories, many of them good but the kind of approach to writing history articles wikipedia relies in, i.e. collaboratively working towards something that represents historical consensus is not going to work here.
Wagrid (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph of the 'Barbarian Identity' section 

message: Hello. I accidentally submitted my edit early while typing my reasoning for my most recent edit. I don't think this is that big of a deal, but just in case, I'll clarify here. I removed the statement "The Migration Period was followed by the Viking Age" from the lead section. Firstly, it was an awkward, one-sentence paragraph that disrupted the flow of the lead. Secondly, it was literally contradicted by the first paragraph, which states that the Migration Period ended in 568. Given that the Viking Age did not start until 793, over two centuries later, it seems incorrect to state that the Viking Age "followed" the Migration Period. Silver181 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification regarding edit 

message: Guy 2607:FEA8:70A1:8C00:75E0:2CE4:AE70:5BE (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did migration occur in the ninth century 

message: mathematics mean what 105.112.106.152 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics mean what