Talk:Getica

message: This seems semi-redundant with Getica, dunno which should be the main and which the redir though. Stan 04:48, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi everybody. I've been working on Jordanes. This is next. I'm a classicist. Sorry, but as it stands, this article is totally off the wall. I think it is really splendid that someone takes such an interest in the work of Jordanes. Congratulations. Keep working, however.
For example, we read that Jordanes copied lots of text from Cassiodorus. How would the writer or any of his sources know that? Cassiodorus' work on the Goths has been absent from the roster since ancient times. 
:: Sorry, I don`t understand what you mean... Are you implying that Jordanes did not based his work on Cassiodorus?
Similarly, we read that in the initial books Jordanes was really writing about Dacians. I have these before me now and it pretty much talks about Scandinavia!
:: Read it again... Really, do it! If you did it and still are not able to tell the difference, than you lack basic knowledge... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was right... You do lack basic knowledge... If you want to, you can consider him "dumb". As far as I`m concerned, it was just a case of mistaken identity... Others have done it too (the goth-getae thing)... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about the not very prestigious Scandinavia (and indeed, it wasn`t prestigious at that time, as they didn`t have Hollywood) was given as a probable reason for the confusion. I really don`t see what`s the problem... greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and think you should not consider (yourself so smart, and) others so dumb... Since you started it, I`m going to ask: what was I suppose to see in the map so shocking? greier 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a total rewrite

message: Dave, I will no longer try to put that part about the mixing of goths with the dacians, because there`s no point if users like Aldux will continue reverting my edits, like he has done on this article, but also on Goths article, where he continues to put that remark about how "Their kings and priests came from a separate aristocracy and their mythic kings of ancient times were honored as gods. Their mythic lawgiver, named Deceneus, traditionally dated about the 1st century BC, ordered their laws, which they possessed by the 6th century in written form and called belagines" despite the fact that it is clearly a confusion. Deceneus was a dacian priest, as literally hundreds of ancient sources say so. The dacians were divided into two classes: the common people "comati", from latin coma (cf. Romanian coama) meaning "hair mane" of something like this, as they wore long hair. The aristocracy wore the phrygian cap, hence latin authors called them "pileati", from latin pileus meaning "felt" or something like this. Leaving that aside, I think you should add at least a remark on this article, so this confusion would stop. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? This confussion, goths-getae, dacians-danes is centuries old...
What if, just how Aldux uses Jordanes, I would use the following and write in Wikipedia articles based on these sources:
Dudo of Saint-Quentin - Dacia
Isaac Newton - Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John; CHAP. 5. Of the Kingdoms represented by the feet of the Image composed of iron and clay: " Dacia was a large country bounded on the south by the Danube, on the east by the Euxine sea, on the north by the river Neister and the mountain Crapac, and the west by the river Tibesis, or Teys, which runs southward into the Danube a little above Belgrade. It comprehended the countries now called Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia, and the eastern part of the upper Hungary. Its antient inhabitants were called Getae by the Greeks, Daci by the Latins, and Goths by themselves. Alexander the great attacked them, and Trajan conquered them, and reduced their country into a Province of the Roman Empire; and thereby the propagation of the Gospel among them was much promoted" 
André Thévet, Cosmographie Universelle, cap. De la Valachie, Transylvanie, Bulgarie et Servie/About Wallachia, Transylvania, Bulgaria and Serbia: "the origin of these people come entirely, as most people say, come from the getae, called this way by the romans, and wich since then have called goths"
 greier 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is it very important to add a section clarifying this mix to the reader. Plus, the early part of the book has some very useful information regarding the history of Geto-Dacians.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Goths and Getae

message: Where's a summary of what this work says?  I assume that should be part of any Wikipedia article on a book or record Jztinfinity 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I wonder why nobody asks this question before. It so obvious? If so please write about the original manuscript. 
This sentence asserts that the original is somewhere.
:Because Cassiodorus' original version has not survived, Jordanes' work is one of the most important sources for the period of the migration of the European tribes, and the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in particular, from the 3rd century CE.
*Is it true ? 
*Why we don’t have here the high resolution scan or pictures of the pages?
Nasz 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the original of "Gethica" 

message: In Article is Misleading sentence:
 Cassiodorus' work claims to have the Gothic "Folk songs" -- the Carmina Prisca (Latin) -- as a prime source. Recent scholarship regards this as highly questionable.  The main purpose of the original work (Cassiodorus's) was to give the Gothic ruling class a glorious past - to match the past of the senatorial families of Roman Italy.
1 not Casidorius work. Is not survived
2 Not even Jordanes work. Where it is?
This is example of adding false contest in delicate way. I marking this as {fact}. Nasz 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how 

message: Aldux: rv it has utterly no sense adding a list of those whohave or haven't quoted Jordanes, and it is not done in any similar ancient history article.
N:Could you provide a full list of pre Mommsen citation index of Jordanes? It will save me a lot of time! These references may be important to show who quoted Jordanes before T Momsen. Answer me Aldux honestly just one question: Do you have any question regarding Getica ?  
:Nasz 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is quotation index?

message: Aldux inserted that Konrad Peutinger printed manuscripts of Jordanes. But he rather did print in 1515 another manuscript. Aldux do not provide any reference to the Printed book, not even the Title. Even i just in Wikipedia there is a text "In some respects he suggests a comparison with Jordanes" look in itro of  Historia gentis Langobardorum but is not a work of Joradnes or any of his 4 names.
Aldux reverted it:
:The book was rediscovered in Vienna in 1442 by the Italian humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini.William Thomas Miller Gamble, The Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Its Inheritance in Source-valuation and Criticism; Washington: Catholic University of America; 1927; Pp vi, 202, 59; Also Ann Arbor, Mich.. Univ. Microfilms Internat.. 1980. 202 S..  Its editio princeps was issued in 1515 by Konrad Peutinger (this mean that Peutinger printed book)<!-can somebody provide references to the Peutinger book, is the book exist somewhre or no one survived fires. What is the number of copies printed by him? What was the title? -->, followed by many other editions.< ref >Smith, William (editor); Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, "Jornandes"</ref><! -- should be very easy to point to subsequent editions, plese contribute to find biblographical records and earlier online versions-->
General question: Where is the printed edition of Peutinger? The 1927 (stiked by Aldux) reference is a secondary reference(i alredy ordered the book) but i suspect there is no evidence.  03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously don't know Latin, or you would have noted that in a Latin excerpt you've read it is written that Diaconus, Getica and Romana were published in the same volume.--Aldux 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre Mommsen prints 

message: I had shortened the Cassiodurus section, which was now reverted by User:Aldux, with the edit summary "some of these shortenings cut sourced material". Well, maybe, but this section about the life of Cassiodorus was disproportionally long in an article about the Getica, even after I had shortened it. Aldux even restored the paragraph starting with "The latter view raises as many questions as it answers," which just seem to be some editor's musings. This section needs to be cut down. /Pieter Kuiper 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening Cassiodorus section 

message: I cut the following text out of the article, pending a more detailed investigation. It is poorly written, I can't make out what the author intends to say, and it smells like WP:SYN. But I'd like to check it out first before pulling it completely.
::According to reacently publicated notices by Jūrate Statkutė de Rosales one very important translation of Jordanes made by Theodor Mommsen was actually incorrect. This fact raised a lot of discussions between scholars that Jordanes actually wrote about peninsulas of eastern Baltic coast: Sambia, Curonian spit, Gdansk or Danzig. This region was the largest source of Amber road in ancient world. Later medieval sources, like writings of Adam of Bremen, royal chronicle of Alfonso X and others support this theory. A lot of widely accepted historical facts concerned with with history of germanic peoples, Skandinavia appeared only because of mistake or possible falsification caused by ideas of pangermanism. Jurate Rosales, Los Godos. Barcelona, Ed. Ariel S.A., 2nd edition, 2004. (edition in Spanish)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon Arya (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jūrate Statkutė de Rosales 

message: Just added a synopsis taken from the Jordanes article (section "Works"). I think it would be better to remove that stuff from the aforementioned article since it better suits here. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis of the work 

message: I think Jordane meant slavs by word "sclaves"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Russian (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  theme of slavs as one of the most important in Getica 

message: The Byzantines also used antiquated terminology, yet modern translations do not "correct" the terms according to what a modern exegete or profane considers adequate in terms of what the Byzantines must have meant really meant by that word. Instead, the term is translated as such, accompanied by due explanations regarding the semantic value. Getarum translates as "of the Getae", and this is the word an late antique writer would have used to refer to the Getae. The very confusion between the two populations supports this: take it out, and Jordanes or Cassiodorus or anybody would have solely used Gothorum. Sterp (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what your doing is just OR. The translation of the the title how I do is supported by the modern English translation, and Walter Pohl (one of the top experts on Romano-Barbaric relations in Late Antiquity) observes and longly discusses in "i Goti d'Italia e la tradizione delle steppe", pp. 227-51, 1993. I'm not interested in establishing the truth, oly that what is presented reflects modern scholarship; and since I don't no of any modern translation of Jordanes' work titled The Origin and Deeds of the Getae, I think the whole point has little chances of standing.Aldux (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What Pohl and the rest did was to give an English title to a book about the Goths. It was not a proper translation. Jordanes' opening paragraphs are correctly translated by other authors: You urge me to leave the little work I have in hand, that is, the abbreviation of the Chronicles, and to condense in my own style in this small book the twelve volumes of the Senator on the origin and deeds of the Getae from olden time... - Jordanes. When used as primary reference, other authors translate the title as ..of the Getae and add explanations. Likewise, Britannica gives .. of the Getae plus the necessary explanations. I also think this discussion is pointless: Walter Pohl or whoever can never convince me that Getarum doesn't translate as "of the Getae". End of story. 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getarum / Gothorum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Getica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306132839/http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425 to http://histvarld.historiska.se/histvarld/sok/artikel.asp?id=10425
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Getica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070405141204/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1715.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/1715.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a Jordanes article, and Jordanes wrote more than one work. A section which particular seems more appropriate to the Jordanes article is the section about his Latin .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some parts should probably move to [[Jordanes]]