Talk:Gothic and Vandal warfare

message: Why do we refer to some people as "goths" (i.e. Someone who identifies with goth subculture, has macabre interests and wears black clothing)and "Vandals" (As in someone who is anti-social and engages in "Vandalism"). Is there any information as to say why these terms persist into modern day usage? Are the origins for modern usage dated or in anyway related to Gothic and Vandal history?
--WallytheWizard (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern day etymology for Goths and Vandals

message: Frankly, coverage of 'Barbarian' military institutions has to start somewhere (though the classical/medieval split gets in the way). I haven't had the time to work on the subsections I'm familiar with, and don't have the expertise to work on the others. Jacob Haller 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. But empty articles shouldn't exist for more than a few minutes. Once you've got the content, recreate and add it. --Eyrian 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia formatting to draft the article off-site and post it in whole. Second, I'm not an expert in every subsection. I suspect someone else has some knowledge of the later material, and getting the page 'out there' speeds up such collaboration. Jacob Haller 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Empty sections should be omitted from the article page, potentially finding a home on the talk page if necessary. If you're not very familiar with the subject, just add a little bit of information and use the  tag. If you want a place to experiment with contributions before putting them into a live article, try using a sandbox. Like this one: User:Jacob Haller/Sandbox. --Eyrian 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hang On

message: I'm not sure how to type the Gothic (th) or (hw) letters in the Roman alphabet. Jacob Haller 06:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not totally sure what you're talking about, but perhaps you could copy/past from Gothic language? Wikipedia also has a spcial character map at the bottom when editing, perhaps the symbols you're looking for are there. --Eyrian 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Typing

message: please give the page numbers in the books you cite. Wandalstouring 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  page numbers 

message: take a look at the leidang article (the English version is poor, the Scandinavians are better) on germanic military organization. I don't know who wrote these translations, but as long as he doesn't explicitly prove that the Gothic armies were modelled after the Roman armies, it is absolutely misleading to use specific Roman vocabulary. Wandalstouring 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  helpful material 

message: I don't want to get touchy, since you've added some really helpful material, but imho, "theories on the origin and ethnic identity," isn't really necessary. It belongs in the Goths article but does it connect to Gothic army structures, military institutions, etc.? Jacob Haller 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cultural identity is important for the army because it leads to the issue whether they did include strongly elements in their warfare that were not common among other Germanic tribes. One example you didn't mention was Baltic influence. Wandalstouring 11:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we do mention them as Germanic we may point out possible non-Germanic roots of these federations (Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Sarmatian, etc.) Wandalstouring 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins stuff & Ethnic stuff

message: the article structure needs to be improved. telling first what an army looked like and several chapters later what its purpose was leads the reader into confusion. Find a better solution. Wandalstouring 12:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: I doubt the authors account (it reads like based on tombs). The problem is probably that he concludes the equipment of the soldiers from what was found in tombs, although in tombs was given equipment that could be spared, not what was invaluable (swords). Try to get another author on the topic and compare it to the finds from weapon offerings(a religious ceremony to annihilate the complete equipment of a defeated army). These finds are mostly in southern Scandinavia, the poorest Germanic region, here are some examples: the equipment found in Ejsbøl(in between 300-400 AD) of an estimated force of 200 men had 60 of them with swords, knifes, shields, spears and lances, further 140 had javelins, lances and shields. In Vimose (first offering in the first half of the third century and second offering in the fourth century) 85 swords, 325 spearpoints and 775 lancepoints were found, the estimated equipment for a force of 500 men (lances are thrusting weapons, while spears have a longer blade - Celtic spears). It has been common in the bronze age to equip soldiers with two lances/spears, what still influenced the iron-poor Northern European societies. (Rudolf Simek Götter und Kulte der Germanen ISBN 3-406-50835) Wandalstouring 12:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few Gothic weapon burials. Much of the evidence comes from (North/West Germanic) bog finds, and the proportions of weapons therein. We can reasonably assume that Gothic weapons have much in common with West Germanic ones and with Roman ones. In the latter case, more evidence points to spears than to swords. Elton 1996: 109. Stephenson 2001: 58. Bishop & Coulston 2006: 202. Jacob Haller 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, every lance/spear distinction seems to use a different standard.Jacob Haller 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss the point that this assessment of the proportions of actual equipment via burials is highly disputed and doesn't have much support in science. To be able to spare a sword means that you had at least one left is the mainstream theses, while many older authors and still a minority thinks the burial weapons are representative for the distribution and state of the art equipment. I gave you the example of the Scandinavian excavations, because in this case it can be assumed that the complete eqipment was destroyed and the remains can be found. Please retrieve more than one authority for such disputeable claims on equipment. Wandalstouring 15:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equipment of Gothic forces 

message: I think it best to footnote each entry. All entries come from the glassaries of the works, so the page numbers are not really needed. Dropping the page numbers or subbing 'glossary' for them would allow more consolidation of footnotes. I'm not sure how the coding works. Jacob Haller 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: language footnotes

message: you might want to add a link to this topic and create a seperate article or include it and move the article to a title that better includes the topic. Wandalstouring 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Gothic warfare"? I'm not sure how to retitle the article or add the redirect. Jacob Haller 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  naval raids of the Gothic people 

message: You might use a timeline similar to . The subject mustn't be limited to political entity, you can use it on the development of different types of military equipment for example or different fighting styles, etc. Wandalstouring 18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more suitable infobox 

message: I read about a theses that the Germanic numerical system was probably heavily influenced by the Central Asian decimal organization (10 - 100 - 1000) of armies. Perhaps you can find out more about this. Wandalstouring 16:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  military terms 

message: This section does present a POV not reflected by all sources. Please do more research on whether equipment was adopted by the Germanic tribes or the late Roman army. Wandalstouring 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the POV issue is. I include this section because (1) I was familiar with the subject and had several sources handy (2) Gothic and Vandal soldiers (in regular units, if not federate units as well) might well have used standard Roman weapons (3) Gothic and Vandal fighters fighting against the Roman Empire or in Roman Civil Wars (not that uncommon) might well have faced opponents using these weapons (4) if we can find more references to non-Roman weapons, we might compare/contrast these with Roman weapons. Jacob Haller 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Admittedly the writing isn't great, especially the representative evidence/archaeological evidence alternation. Jacob Haller 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is did the Germanic warriors copy Roman equipment or the Romans Germanic? There is an ongoing dispute, so better say they used the same equipment and not they used Roman equipment. Furthermore there were a lot more swordstyles common in the Germanic forces than in the Roman of that era. If you want to maintain the claim that it is Roman equipment, please quote any metallurgic source that states this equipment was manufactured in the Empire, otherwise it is a wrong claim, like saying all AK 74 are produced in Russia. Wandalstouring 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. The section describes evidence from the empire (or from Roman army bases where Imperial origins are unambiguous, e.g. Newstead). Most of the representational evidence shows Roman soldiers (in personal monuments) or Roman units (in propaganda monuments) though the Exodus Fresco is an exception. As for the archaeological evidence, this mostly comes from graves but clear Roman/non-Roman identification is not so simple. Other sections could describe evidence from elsewhere (though in many cases Imperial origins are likely, e.g. Neupotz). Jacob Haller 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So your statements have nothing to do with the Gothic and Vandal warfare? I will than delete it or move it elsewhere. Wandalstouring 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) It's directly relevent to Gothic and Vandal forces in the Roman Army (2) There is almost no direct evidence of Gothic weapons (because most direct evidence comes from burials, and the Goths, unlike the Romans, Vandals, West Germanic Peoples, and Sarmatians, almost never buried weapons with their dead), so we need indirect data fromneighboring peoples. I don't have enough sources to write up such info for the Sarmatians, Vandals, or West Germanic peoples, but in theory they should also get sections. Jacob Haller 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for Roman armour and weapons 

message: Can anyone recommend suitable sources? Jacob Haller 01:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are Osprey "Germanic Warrior AD 236–568", "Anglo-Saxon Thegn AD 449–1066" and "Viking Hersir 793–1066 AD". --dab (𒁳) 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic Weapons and Armor