Talk:Visigoths

Astorga

The article incorrectly states the city of Astorga to be in Galicia. It is in fact, in Leon. --Bistor92 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see this fact now corrected as stated above, but it still deserves some discussion:

Actually, Astorga (then "Asturica" or "Asturica Augusta") was probably the largest city in the province of Gallaecia, created in the Diocletian's Reorganization of 298 AD. A division which was still regarded at the time of the Kingdom of Toledo, while León (then "Legio") was only a walled city and the former seat of the Legio VII.

It was only after the Muslim conquest of the Peninsula, and the subsequent creation of the Christian Kingdoms, that León rose as one of them, when the Kingdom of Asturias marched southward and stablished its capital city in the ancient Legio.

The current province of Leon, which includes Astorga in its territory, dates back to the Administrative Division of 1833. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.185.26 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

North Africa?

(removed from article page) Did they conquer North Africa, or is that the Vandals I am thinking of?

I think that's the Vandals.

Yes, it's was the Vandals. The Ogre 16:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Vandals were the conquerors of Roman Africa. The Visigoths contemplated it after Alaric sacked Rome in 410, but he died and his successor took Spain and part of Gaul as the terms of a peace settlement. Ironically, it was the Vandals whom they drove out of Spain and precipitated Gaiseric's move to Africa.

Actually, they did not take Spain until later... the peace settlement placed them in Aquitania.

Aquitaine?

"After peace was secured a few years later, Honorius granted the Visigoths lands in the Aquitaine area of modern France,"

Not meaning to nitpick, but didn't the Visigoths have their capital in or near Toulouse? If so, wouldn't that mean this is in the Midi-Pyrenees region? The Aquitaine area of modern France is a fairly small area, and I think that the land settled by the Visigoths was quite a bit larger

They were appointed as defenders of Aquitania in a feudus about the time of Athaulf being raised king. Evolution of their movements on Gallia and Hispania (fighting Alans, Vandals and Suevii) created the kingdom of Tolose and, after wars with magister militum Constantius, with Galla Placidia in the middle, they finally entered in Hispania (taking Barcino from the Vandals, modern day Barcelona) and entered to stay.

They were in the Roman province of Aquitaine, not the French province of Aquitaine. Toulouse was in Aquitania.

Origins?

What are the origins of the visigoths? I remember reading the original theory was southern Sweden (goths from Germany but the group itself from southern Sweden and moved south)...

Goths has what you're looking for. --Wetman 03:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes of names and dates need vetting

Anonymous User:68.49.159.131 has ranged through many of the Gothic kings, changing dozens of names and dates. See User history. These changes need to be vetted for accuracy. Such wholesale changes are frequently agenda-driven, with no base in documented history. --Wetman 01:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thervingi and Visigoths

Are there any references to the Visigoths (not to the Thervingi) before A.D. 390? The Hun War, Roman War, and settlement all divide the earlier (Therving) history from the later (Visigothic history) and there is no reason to assume that the older Therving identity corresponds with the later Visigothic identity. Heather 1996 pp. 111ff observes that the later Visigoths included some non-Therving and excluded some Therving groups. Jacob Haller 07:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has addressed these concerns. I now recommend seperate pages for the Thervingi and the Visigothi because they have so little to do with each other. This will require deleting the redirect from Thervingi to Visigothi, and correcting all the links, but correcting all the links is already needed what with the singular title for the plural topic. Jacob Haller 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Portugal and Spain History boxes

Ghepeu added the History of Spain template. I've just added the History of Portugal template. Iberia pr Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, if this article has the History of Spain template, it must also have the History of Portugal template. The Ogre 16:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing the "History of France" and "History of Italy" templates, probably POV to not include them. Of course, we could also have a "History of Europe" and "Germanic Tribes" templates. Oh, and a new "History of Visigoth" template, which can be added it to the History of Spain article. The possibilities are endless. Stbalbach 21:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree! Probably the best thing is not to have the templates at all, just the links to the "History of (whatever)", where you can find the respectives templates. I was just tired of having to delete the History of Spain template people keep adding to this type of articles that are about historical periods well before the existence of the modern country of Spain and are also connected with the history of many other modern countries (namely Portugal, when we are talking about the Iberian peninsula)! The Ogre 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Stbalbach. I see that you did a general clean up of the "See also" section, including removing the removal of the "History of..." templates. Just to reiterate that I agree and believe the article, in this regard, should just stay as it is. By the way, the same problem can be found in the article about Hispania... The Ogre 18:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be named "Visigoths" instead of "Visigoth"?

Surely this article is about the collective people, not just one individual. Appears to be inconsistent to have an article named Visigoth, and then start off the article with the sentence: "The Visigoths were one of two main branches of... " Downwards 07:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By convention articles are named in the singular on Wikipedia, to avoid back and forth name changes, just need to pick one so thats the convention. The plural form links here. --Stbalbach 15:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why are the Goths, Vandals, and Huns found under Goths, Vandals, and Huns -- all plural? --Michael K. Smith 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

True, it seems most of the "european peoples" articles are plural. Technically it should be singular. Practically speaking, a look at the "what links here" (500 item expansion), shows a very slight favor to incoming links in the singular. But if a name change to plural is done, someone will need to fix all the double re-directs. -- Stbalbach 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that because "visigoth" is an adjective? Like.. "The visigoth king"? I'm sure "american" is represented more often than "americans". Apocryphite 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Visigothic," never "Visigoth." Jacob Haller 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The form "Visigoth" definitely grates on the ear; even the article uses the plural form over the singular.. I also notice that some well-meaning editor is moving all of the "Visigoths" link to "Visigoth". I'm giving fair notice here that I intend to be bold & move this article to "Visigoths". -- llywrch 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Before you do, can you check with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups for some guidance on this article naming? There are some conflicting conventions of singular versus plural. The general consensus is to use the singular in the MoS, but there are a lot of exceptions and not sure how it applies to ethnic groups. --Stbalbach 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: support the move. As people they are naturally plural. --Sugaar 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

like the Irish, Manx, and French ? --Gibnews 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arianism

The offered definition does not describe Wulfilan theology as attested by the letter of Auxentius or the later Gothic theology of the Skeireins. Jacob Haller 07:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd edit in a report on Arian Christianity as understood by the Visigoths. A link or reference would give it ballast. --Wetman 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A long section would be distracting, IMHO. Since 'Arianism' encompasses different traditions and systems with somewhat different criticisms of Athanasianism, I prefer to restrict it to Arius' system with other terms for other systems. But the term is common if misleading. Simply deleting the definition might help. I don't think Wulfilan Christianity completely fits withon any one of the 'Arian' categories, though connections might be drawn to one or another.

skeireins: "... ni ibna nih galeiks unsarai garaihtein: ak silba garaihtei wisands ..." roughly translating "... neither the same nor similar to our righteousness, but himself being righteousness ..." Jacob Haller 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

I have a Spanish book published by Juan Antonio Cebrian about the Visigoths in Spain starting with Alaric I. The chapters are organized by each succeeding King with a portrait of each King. Would it be alright to scan and add the pictures of each King at the top of their respective articles, to add a face to what many might consider a "dry" period of history? Also what kind of file type would be advisable?

The copyright would remain with the publisher. Those nineteenth-century imaginary 'portraits" of Visigothic kings of whom no authentic portrait exists are more distracting than decorative, in my view. --Wetman 11:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thervings

I created a seperate page for the Thervings editing the relevent sections from this article to create the stub. Jacob Haller 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Remaining History

Can anyone add a little about what happens to the Visigoths after the Moors take over Spain? 24.240.36.221 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They blended in the main population. The Ogre 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some elite Visgoths even converted to Islam and married into Moorish families, or so I've read. Purely political alliances, most likely. Some powerful Visigothic or Ibero-Roman families remained prominent in Islamic Iberia, at least for a few centuries. Of course this varied with place, there were also poor Visigoths, and anyway the evidence is scarce, etc... FilipeS 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An example of elite Visgoths converted to Islam are the Banu Qasi. Most of the Iberian aristocracy could reconstruct their respective lineages to the Visgoths. The Ogre 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to Gothic War (37--382)

Corrected the starting year to 376 (see Talk:Gothic War (377-382) and the text here. More than two leaders (Fritigern, Alaviv (if another person), Alatheus, Saphrax, Farnobius, Athanaric, Munderic, Lagariman, Odotheus (attested 380s), (bishop) Wulfila, Gaaththa (attested 380s), Arimer...). Not known who did the ferrying. Rome unwilling (not unable) to feed or settle refugees (see Ammianus book 31 chapter 5). No evidence of false message or unreliable intelligence (check Ammianus book 31 chapter 12 and Delbrück's study of the campaign). Jacob Haller 13:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the Alaric section, there is nothing to suggest the Romans negotiated with Fritigern in particular. Peter Heather discusses this in some of his works. Jacob Haller 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the flow of this article is disputable

It's extremely difficult to understand the history of this article if the sections cant flow chronologically. Kendirangu 11:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

how come attila ataked the visigoth empaire?

he was on the othere said of the romen empaire. in the artikel about attila they said he invayeded the visigoth. had the vusigoth had a former empaire ?

Cleanup: Thervingi and Greuthungs

𐌷𐌴𐌹𐌻𐍃! The section is intriguing, but written like a scientific article, not an encyclopedic one. It reasons to much and it weights the sides and arguments too much. The section name should be Thervingi or Thervingi Connection. Double blipps " are ugly in a section title, and Visigoths are already the topic of the article. The two or three last paragraphs in that section belongs to some other section. The reference should also be shorter, such as (Eutr. Brev. 8, 2, 2) [1], moved to the <ref>-part. Rursus 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, what information does a "reference" like (Eutr. Brev. 8, 2, 2) transmit to a Wikipedia reader? Wikipedia, not being a paper encyclopedia, has no excuse for such Victorianisms. --Wetman 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer more extensive references (author, year, title, sometimes chapter or page) without so many abbreviations. I also prefer merging all the references at the end of the sentence if not the paragraph. Jacob Haller 19:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thervingi fixed. Rursus 11:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Further cleanup, references. Does anyone actually dispute the colorless reports now contained in this fully referenced section? If not, someone can remove the tag. --Wetman 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it certainly doesn't look better now!! My original objection wasn't against facts but about a spaghetti of colorless reports interspersed with sick double blipp usage. OK, then the refs could be vast and infinite then, if you wish, but i think it is still better to move them to the reference part. In all simplicity:

"In the early history of Goths, Greutungs and Terwings were known subgroups, as reported by this-or-that author from antiquity, but later the Goths were subdivided into Wesi, Ostrogoths, Gepids, and according to Prokopios, Vandals. Jordanes, himself of half Gothic origin (?), identified Greutungs with Ostrogoths and Terwings with Wesi, also called Visigoths."

That is the base story, and arguments for and against this should come next, sorted per historician claiming this-or-that theory and his/her arguments, references in the reference part, as per {{cite web}} and similar templates. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

Disputes: Paragraphs 3 and 4 assume that the Thervingi and Vesi are one people, that the Greutungi and Ostrogothi are one people, and that the Thervingi and Greutungi were the branches of the Goths in the fourth century. Also, does the term Ostrogothi appear by the fifth century (before the end of the fourth century) or only in the (late) fifth century? Jacob Haller 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, oh! Yes, that is a valid dispute, but what the para 3 and 4 try, but utterly fail to do, is to evaluate arguments for and against such theories. Now it is an incomprehensible spaghetti, as indicated by the previous discussion. As it is written now, your template is motivated, but the text should be rewritten so to discuss various theories about Greutung/Terwing connexions with later Goths. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to address these concerns with citations, but I have yet to concentrate on adding views not held or covered by Wolfram. Srnec 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Might Want to research this More

"The Battle of Adrianople in 378 was the decisive moment of the war. The Roman forces were slaughtered; the Emperor Valens was killed during the fighting, shocking the Roman world and eventually forcing the Romans to negotiate with and settle the Barbarians on Roman land, a new trend with far reaching consequences for the eventual fall of the Roman Empire"

For One thing, Peter Heather, in his Book, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" adds an 'H' on to Adrianople, so check the correct spelling on this. Further, you might want to reconsider the claim that this battle was the decisive moment, seeing as how it occurred only a third of the way into the War. If it was truly forced the Romans to negotiate then why did it take four additional years to end the conflict?? And how seeing how this was the only significant Gothic Victory in the war.

Might Want to research this More

"The Battle of Adrianople in 378 was the decisive moment of the war. The Roman forces were slaughtered; the Emperor Valens was killed during the fighting, shocking the Roman world and eventually forcing the Romans to negotiate with and settle the Barbarians on Roman land, a new trend with far reaching consequences for the eventual fall of the Roman Empire"

For One thing, Peter Heather, in his Book, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" adds an 'H' on to Adrianople, so check the correct spelling on this. Further, you might want to reconsider the claim that this battle was the decisive moment, seeing as how it occurred only a third of the way into the War. If it was truly forced the Romans to negotiate then why did it take four additional years to end the conflict?? And how seeing how this was the only significant Gothic Victory in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.193.37 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the conclusion of Peter Heath, in his Book, an apt quote would enrich the article. --Wetman 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary name for the city was Hadrianopolis or Adrianopolis. The current name is Edirne. Jacob Haller 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As for being the "only significant Gothic victory," you've forgotten Marcianopolis at the beginning of the war. There was another in Macedonia or Thessaly in 380, but Ammianus' history cuts off after 378 and the others are not as clear. It's been argued that Gettysburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War, and it was halfway through the conflict, that Stalingrad was the most decisive battle of WWII - halfway through - and the eastern front of WWII - 15-19 1/2 months after the start, out of 46 1/2 months, and so on. Jacob Haller 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

I have suggested that Visigothic Kingdom, a rather disjointed article I suspect was created by babel-fish from a foreign source, be merged into this one. I don't know enough about it to do it myself though. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the article Visigothic Kingdom divided off this article because this was getting unwieldy? The texts are very similar. That's the main article for Visigoth political history in the kingdom of Toulouse and the kingdom of Toledo. This article retains a concise summary of that material, in the ordinary way. --Wetman (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the kingdom article so that a merger will not seem necessary, but should the section on the foundation of cities remain here or at the Visigothic kingdom article? Srnec (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link

Hi, the spam filter prevented me from adding this af:Wesgote interwiki link, can someone please assist. laurens (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Desperately needs some blood

This is one of the poorer history articles I've seen in WP. It seems to be a collection of facts glued together without any interest. After reading it, I know little about the Visigoths, as a people, as a culture, as a force in the world. There isn't a drop of life in the whole thing. These people *must* be interesting, wherever they came from. They must have been pretty good warriors, because they did some nasty to the Romans and the Greeks. There must have been some drama around their defeat by the Muslims. But none of that human drama comes through in this arid survey. No worries for Cliff's Notes *here*. Twang (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Visigoths converted to Arian Christianity in 376

This date is in the arian page and if correct it should be on this one. Also the religion section should start with pre-christian beliefs if anything is know about them. Or say we know nothing about their religion prior to their conversion to Christianity. Nitpyck (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Visigoths did not exist in 376. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tervingi,etc

The Tervingi and Greuthingi of the 3rh century were different political entities to the Ostro and Visi-goths of the 5th, which cannot be equated straightforwardly. Eg the ostrogoths were a union of two or three different Balkan Gothic groups (predominantly the Amal led Goths in Pannonia and the Thracian Gothic foederati formerly led by Theodoric Strabo). This need to be highlighted, and the verbose and confusing paragraph about Tervingi- Visigothi as it stands need serious work Hxseek (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing here is straightforward. Scholars have serious differences of opinion. Everything should be cited. That said, I hope my tweaks have improved the section slightly. Srnec (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clothing?

Anyone know where I can find information on clothing and armor and such? Needed for an indie film I'd like to be as accurate as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.95.62 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Visigoths did not exist in 376/378, and Theruingi =/= Visigoths.

The Vesi seem to have emerged out of the events of 376-383. and the Visogoths proper out of the events of 395-418. I think it's anachronistic and misleading to backdate the Visigoths to include earlier groups, or to claim Visigoths during the conversion period, the Battle of Adrianople, etc. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Goths are not Germans

Unless this is the German Wikipedia because we're writing in German. We're writing in English, which we tend to consider a distinct language. English and German are more closely related to each other than Gothic is to English or German. Goths share some of the origins of the other Germanic people, but that doesn't mean Goths are Germans, or Swedes, or what-have-you. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Visigothic persecution of Jews?

I had read elsewhere that the earlier Voisigoths had been relatively tolerant, while the later Catholic Visigoths launched large-scale persecutions. I don't have a source handy, but the current text implies the opposite. 71.191.233.216 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)