Talk:Decebalus

message: does anybody know which ancient document mentions the name Decebalus for the first time ? -- Criztu 09:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources on Decebalus 

message: I removed the phrase "who although he did indeed kill himself, official Roman propaganda claimed that they killed him." after the sentence "It is likely, however, that in the process of dying Decebalus was captured by a Roman Cavalry Scout named Tiberius Claudius Maximus from Legio VII Claudia as is claimed on the funerary stele discovered at Gramini in Greece. " because it was grammatically awkward, and is making an unsubstantiatable claim - nobody who witnessed the death of Decebalus is alive today, and the forensic evidence is long disappeared. I did change "stated" to "claimed" to preserve the original authors intent in showing that claims made on stelae are often boastful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.207.230.17 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  style 

message: I reverted these yesterday, since they seemed unhelpful, badly written, and confusing. Today he has put them back in. I don't like edit wars -- does anyone else think they are of use, or should I go ahead and continue to revert? Mlouns (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent confusing edits by Dumaru 

message: I find especially the first paragraph containing extreme "hard" language. "had enough of him", "vice", "annoyed", "disturbing" are all out of place in the context. It would be nice if someone proficient in English and in history polished it up a bit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landroni (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hard" language 

message: Decebalus page, heading "War against Emperor Domitian", subheading Enemy's eye view, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: this says that the Dacians defeated the Romans (at the Second Battle of Tapae).
Second Battle of Tapae page calls this an "indecisive Roman victory".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.177 (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between Decebalus page and Second Battle of Tapae page 

message: The German article cites a German-language source to the effect that, counter to claims made in some secondary literature, Decebalus and Diurpaneus are emphatically not the same person. Moreover, the article mentions another source that calls Decebalus a nephew of Diurpaneus, and identifies Diurpaneus with Duras, which supports the non-identity view; the first source rejects this identification, but agrees that they were two different people. This needs to be remedied in all articles that mention Diurpaneus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This certainly raises doubts regarding Decebalus being Diurpaneus. How do you explain the regency of Diurpaneus, who succeeded Burebista in 85, when it seems Decebalus reigned 85-106? Is it possible that Decebalus was a common name as well as an epithet adopted by the king? Cornelius (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decebalus and Diurpaneus 

message: The last paragraph of the introduction describes Romania as "the successor to ancient Dacia", but this is a very doubtful formulation, for several reasons. First of all, except for Burebista's union (some of which must have been fairly flimsy), no "Dacian" state has ever really covered all, or even the majority of Romanian territory. Second, there is hardly any hint of at least modest continuity of state authority between the Dacian and the Romanian state which could make Romania a successor state any more than France is a successor state of a Gallic/Celtic kingdom or Moldova a successor state of Scythia or Sarmatia. Third, the nature of the two states is vastly different, as they are separated by almost two thousand years of state development; the nature of authority in the two political units is so vastly different that they cannot be so easily lumped in the same pot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can think of better terminology use it. The point of the sentence is simply to clarify succinctly to readers that Romania includes the territory of Dacia and that Romanians identify as the inheritors of Dacian identity, in just the same way that the French identify themselves as the inheritors of notre ancetres les gaulois. Otherwise first-time readers unfamiliar with the topic may be confused about why Romanians are mentioned. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase sounds very much like using the term "successor state", which is a rather well-established term, describing a new sovereign state that is somehow recognized continuing the government of the old one. The state of the Diadochi, for instance, would be the successor states of the Alexander the Great's empire, but there is no similar relation between Romania and Dacia. On the other hand, I am at loss finding a better way to succinctly describe what you mentioned, too. I'll try to think of something :).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.185.227 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtful "succession"

message: Ok, maybe this would be a good time to open up a wikipedia account, I'm the same guy responsible for the section about the doubtful succession.
I just noticed the box on the right lists "Andrada" as a consort for Decebalus. This is extremely wrong! I am not aware of a single historical source that mentions anything like this! It's taken from a Romanian film made in the seventies, which served a largely political purpose (wasn't necessarily very bad, but not too historically accurate either).
History is a hobby for me, not my primary occupation, so there is always the chance that I somehow missed this extremely important information about Decebalus, but unless someone can provide a historical source for this (and be ready to back its interpretation with arguments, because I am 99.9999% there is no written source that mentions a consort for Decebalus, so it's probably in the line of the famous "decebalvs / per scorillo" *if* it exists), I *strongly* suggest the removal of that line!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. Many of these articles on ancient Dacian leaders were in a terrible state, often copied from the Romanian ones which seem to be full of pop culture-derived fantasies and contradictions (the Romanian article on Scorilo has him ruling from 27 BC to 14 AD and also being the father of Decebalus, who therefore came to power seventy years after his father's death!). I've tried to get the Eng ones in better shape, but sorting through the sources isn't easy. I think the infobox was just copied over from the Romanian one. I've removed the name of Mrs Decebalus. If you know the title of the film it could be added to the section at the bottom of the article. And yes, it would be good to register! Paul B (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the famous "Dacii" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060482/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt ), but I don't really remember. I watched it a very long time ago. While the historical narrative in it is pretty bad, other aspects of the depiction are actually remarkably accurate, which is why many people around here in Romania ended up assuming the account itself is also pretty true to historical fact. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that was wrong even movie-wise... I think the aforementioned Andrada was depicted as Decebalus' sister there. I'll register and see if there's anything I can do to help with this article, including settling the who-came-up-with-this-Andrada-chick question :).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.24.152 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a character called Andrada in the film Columna. I've seen both Dacii and Columna recently. I don't remember Decebalus having a wife in either film, but she may have been mentioned. I looked about on the internet and came across a weird website that referred to a daughter of Decebalus called Andrada who asked the gods to turn here to stone rather than be captured by the Romans. If that's not just totally made up, it sounds like some historically recent folk-myth invented to explain a rock that was vaguely woman-shaped. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's Columna, not Dacii. I have only managed to find a reference to a Dacian Andrada in A.D. Xenopol's "Istoria Românilor din Dacia Traiană", Vol. 1 (I'm quoting from vol. 1 in edition that appeared in Iași, edited by Tipo-Litografia H. Goldner, 1888). On page 185, A.D. Xenopol quotes an inscription that says: "Aia lui Nando a trăit 80 de ani. Andrada lui Bituva a trăit 80 de ani, Brieena a trăit 40 de ani, Iusta a trăit 30 de ani, Bedar 12. După moartea ei Herculan libertul au pus (ceastă piatră) patronei sale drept recunoștință" (English: "Aia, (daughter) of Nando lived 80 years. Andrada (daughter) of Bituva lived 80 years, Brieena lived 40 years, Iusta lived 30 years, Bedar 12. After her death Herculan the libert with gratitude consecrated (this stone) to his patroness"; Latin source, quoted by Xenopol, in case I screwed up the translation, is: "Aia NAndonis vixit annis LXXX. Andrada Bituvantis vixit annis LXXX. Brieena vixit annis XL. Iusta vixit annis XXX. Bedarus XII. Post obitum ei Herculanus libertus patronae benemerenti"). Unfortunately, while Xenopol does not mention just where this inscription comes from, it is clear from the context that it dates from some time after the Roman conquest. Xenopol goes on to say that "The names mentioned in this inscription truly show us the members of a Dacian family, which had nonetheless adopted Roman customs etc.". No explanation is given as to the source of the inference that this is a Dacian family, but it's literally the only place where I could find this name mentioned as belonging to a Dacian noblewoman. It's suspiciously close to the context in Columna, too, so it's plausible that it could (but there is no proof that it did) have served as inspiration to the script writers. Either way, I'm quite sure there is no written source that mentions a wife of Decebalus. I do believe the capture of Decebalus' sister is mentioned by written sources, but no name is given for her, either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welandt (talk • contribs) 08:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrada

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Decebalus. 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/20140808042159/http://www.decebalusrex.ro/en/istoricul-3.php to http://www.decebalusrex.ro/en/istoricul-3.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Decebalus. 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/20111201170328/http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/regii/decebal.htm to http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/regii/decebal.htm
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) 10:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified