Talk:Ostrogoths

message: This article puts Ermanaric's death in 378, while article on Ermanaric itself puts it between 370 and 376...
:Wolfram's History of the Goths says after 375. His suicide after being defeated by the Huns most likely had a ritualistic character. The death of the king seen as an ultimate sacrifice. Nitpyck (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ermanaric death year? 

message: Did some of the Goths (specifically the Ostrogoths, of course) come from Norway too?
:Who can tell? Rursus 12:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: "to restore the vigor of Roman governement and Roman culture and bring benefits to the Italian people", very well. This is what I've read in other sources. "Consequently, Ostrogothic failure and Frankish success were crucial for the development of early medieval Europe, and the causes of these decisive events deserve special consideration." That's speculation from Cantor's part, and not an encyclopedic NPOV view. Maybe a potential Frankish-failure combined with an Ostrogothic success, may have given rise to a very similar early medieval Europe, except the Franks were mentioned with nostalgy, and the Ostrogoths would have been the Italian national founders. Rursus 12:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also good to include would be possible reason's for Theodoric risking that in the face of the Byzantine Emperor.  For example, Cantor says on page 107 that Theodoric trusted too greatly in "the loyalty of the Italian people and at least the neutrality, perhaps even the support, of the pope and the Catholic church."  This would easily tie into what has already been said in this article: "In Theodoric's theory the Goth was the armed protector of the peaceful Roman..." (see last paragraph in the "Zenith" section).  ---Dewener
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)
thread_title:  History Assignment 9th Grade Discussion (S.K.,D.S.,R.S.) 

message: Regarding this line in the references section:
:"This article incorporates some information taken from http://www.hostkingdom.net/ with permission."
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)
thread_title:  Hostkingdom.net ?? 

message: Would they require cleanup?100110100 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prehistory speculations, not facts 

message: I suggest we move this page back to Ostrogoths. Jacob Haller 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Jacob Haller 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title: Culture section

message: 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)
thread_title:  The highest point/zenith of the Ostrogothic Kingdom is when? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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)
replies: text: We have a well-sourced section on this. One of the sources is Heather. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You also have a lede which pushes the older view without mentioning newer views, and an Etymology section which is heavily biased toward the older view. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Historical Problems I: Greutungi as Ostrogoths 

message: 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)
thread_title: Serious Historical Problems II: Ermaneric's kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Jan Marcussen]] 

message: 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
::The overuse of this source was overstated by me and upon further review, is not as bad as it first appeared. I've cited a few places and will likely find a few more in the future. The page still needs quite a bit more work and yet lacks citations in many places. I'll do what I can when I have the time, but some assistance would be appreciated.--Obenritter (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism City here

message: 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)
thread_title:  The articles first picture needs a more clear description.  

message: I place this here for safe keeping. Anyone know if this can be sourced? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Ostrogoths were probably literate in the 3rd century, and their trade with the Romans was highly developed." This is word-for-word from Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ostrogoth) We both know what editor would take verbatim chunks from Britannica.--Obenritter (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lead, not in body, not obvious if it is sourceable 

message: New paragraph has been added:  The sfn footnote is to Ghosh 2015, pp. 52–53, referring to:
*
The efn footnote is  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:
:
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:
:
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)
replies: text: Perhaps interesting to consider: while most recent publications seem sceptical of any oral source for the Scandza information in Jordanes, Wolfram had a well-known (often cited) speculation that maybe Jordanes (or Cassiodorus) got this information from a real Scandinavian visiting Italy. Note that thus also Wolfram understands the Scandza list as an attempt to describe who is living there in the 6th century, not something from the mythic past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  After rereading this source and your points here, corrections have been made to the text. This is  definitely a case where my bias from Wolfram's lectures and writings bled through, as he did explicitly comment and imply that Jordanes had a Scandinavian source. To this end, I conflated the reading against that information and should have more carefully digested what Ghosh actually meant for this to say. Mea culpa entirely. Great catch by the way, as this example represents good editorial review.--Obenritter (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Thanks for the collaboration. I had a feeling that the apparent problem might be a smaller slip than it seems. Keep in mind that I (like many readers) also read the footnotes, and that made it particularly confusing. I still find our summary a bit difficult to follow if you have not read Ghosh. What if we removed the first sentence and expand on the second one a bit, to explain those rumours more?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it brother.--Obenritter (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent verification failure 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, we don't need a second Walther Kuhn issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Franz Altheim]]