From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Alboin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 26, 2012.

older entries[edit]

Alboïn was killed in 572 at Verona by (H)Elmechi(s) [Helmgis, Helmgeis, Helmgies], his horseman, the lover of Ros(a)munda (or Rosemonde). Calabria Geoffrey, from France.

Added this info with quotation of Paulus, reference to Charles Oman, and link to external translation of the text. Hope this is good enough. Srnec 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Totally! I hope you agree your effort was worth it! Now the colorfulness comes right from the source. And now the literary conventions that the reader detects in the dramatic vignette can be fruitfully discussed. --Wetman 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree myself. This is much better. The effort was worth it, but I don't believe the original revert was entirely necessary. All's well that end's well and once again Wikipedia proves that it is possible for folks who don't even know each other to help create a source of truthful information for everybody. Srnec 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

This vita still needs a succinct opening paragraph summarizing the salient events of Alboin's career. --Wetman 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Just added a note about Tolkien's use of Alboin; is this in the proper format? I'm not accustomed to adding "literary uses" sections. Nyttend 01:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"In an early version of J. R. R. Tolkien's fantasy time-travel story The Lost Road, Tolkien considered placing one of his main characters in the person of Alboin." ...but didn't. It does seem like a minor factoid, even at The Lost Road. I didn't delete it here: but does this add anything at all to the Wikipedia reader's picture of Alboin?--Wetman 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


This has been anonymously deleted: "Alboin had vowed to put all the citizens of the captured cities to death. " If it is a remark in a source, it should be returned, with its source.--Wetman 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The name Alboin[edit]

is very similar to Albin, meaning "white". But the normal French version of Albin is Aubin. The similar name Alvin has the same root as Alboin, namely Ælfwine, meaning "elf friend", but also, it seems, "Edelwine", meaning "noble friend". According to the article Audoin comes from Eadwine (Edwin), meaning "wealth friend". I would say it looks most obviously similar to the Norwegian names Audun and Audvin, with the same meaning, also interpreted as "gifted". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates and drama?[edit]

I'm concerned that in the body of the article there is almost a complete dearth of dates. It's just "then he did this, then he did that," with no dates to nail down exactly (or even approximately) when any of these events occurred. There also seems to be far too much dramatic storytelling, recounting of obvious legends, and so on -- and not nearly enough history. This especially true of the section on his assassination, which is pure melodrama. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alboin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Preliminary concerns[edit]

The article is very cluttered as is, and some of the images seem unnecessary:

  • Given that Justinian is only indirectly related to the subject matter of the article, I question the need for his image to be present.
  • Similarly, the coins of Justin II are rather irrelevant to the article subject matter. In articles where the is are dearth of images, I can see the tenuous link, but this article has a number of viable pictures and does not really need those that do not specifically bear upon the subject of Alboin.
  • There are 4 maps on this page; I would suggest that each be re-evaluated to determine if they all are strictly necessary. Remember, the article is about Alboin not the Lombards or Avars. I would suggest that the third map does not add much to the article in its current form.

Slight overlinking occuring. See WP:OVERLINK. Names/terms should only be linked the first time they appear in the article; similarly well known geographic terms (like Italy) do not need to be wikilinked. I have removed the unnecessary links. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in improving this article: I greatly appreciate it. Passing to the issues, the overlinking excesses were due to a mistake of mine, which brought me to link the same articles in both the lead and in the sections, as I hadn't considered the lead in the linking. Regarding the other links you judged too generic, in 2 cases I'm not fully convinced: Italy in the Middle Ages and Byzantine army may be specific enough for the topic. As for the others, you're right, they're not really needed.
Passing to the images, you hit my main difficulty, I was afraid there was a dearth of images in the article, so I placed some that have only a tenuous connection to the article. I've removed the Justinian and Justin II images; regarding the maps, I inserted the first because the first section starts with an introduction on the migration to Pannonia and since the migration is the main theme of Alboin's life I thought it was important to put the Lombard migration in context. As for the second, it shows the territory controlled by Alboin while in Pannonia and the bordering kingdoms. As for the third, I judged it useful then as it showed how the equilibrium of power had changed after 567, when the Gepids were destroyed; but I'll see to remove it. As for the last map, I see it as key to understand the changes in Italy brought by Alboin. The conquests visible in that map may have all taken place while Alboin was alive, but since there isn't an universal consensus among scholars regarding the dates of Lombard takeover in southern Italy I decided to be cautious.--Aldux (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No problems. I have made quite a few rewrites to the article, but mostly to sentence meaning and to increase textual flow and readability; I have not removed any information or material. Feel free to undo the unlinking if you think it necessary. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • The article was very ebb and flow - very well written in some parts, then poorly written in others. I have made a number of changes to more poorly worded sentences and sections, but have left untouch the segments that were highly readable.
    b (MoS):
    • Conforms to manual of style. Slight issue with overlinking, but problems resolved.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Well referenced.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Citations are to third party publications. Good array of sources.
    c (OR):
    • No evidence of OR. Historical authorities cited and invoked.
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
    b (focused):
    • Remains focused. No digressions.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    • No issues concerning POV evident.
  5. It is stable:
    • No edit wars etc.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • Images are properly tagged and justified. Some superfluous pictures, but those that remain are justifiable and pertinent to article subject matter.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


There's currently the phrase "Gepids' king Thurisind" in the article. I'm wondering if it would be correct to rephrased this to "Gepid king Thurisind"? Have you seen phrases like "Gepid culture" and "Gepid armies"? Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll write it that way, it seems better, and yes, I remember a chapter in a book titled "Gepid culture", so it's fine. Thanks for the input. Aldux (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC questions[edit]

I've had a stab at addressing at least some of the criticisms of the lead in the current FAC, but there are a few things I think still need to be clarified:

  • "During the first war between the two the Gepids initially had the upper hand, but in 567, thanks to an alliance with the Avars, Alboin inflicted a decisive defeat on his enemies". I'm a little thrown by the mention of a "first war". Was the victory in 567 the end of that first war, a second, or what?
  • "After gathering together a large motley group". This is a little too colourful and imprecise for my taste. A large group of what? Mercenaries? In what way were they "motley"? Weren't they mainly Lombards?
  • "He entered an almost undefended Italy, by-passed the Julian Alps". Is "by-passed correct here?
  • "By this time though, signs of disintegration and loss of control over the army were beginning to manifest themselves." What does "disintegration" mean here? Disintegration of what? Presumably this is talking about Alboin's army, not any army that might have been opposing him?

Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, from the lead it's not very clear, I'm afraid. In Alboin#Reign_in_Pannonia I hopes it comes out clearer: in 565/566 there was a first war in which the Gepids with Byzantine help defeated Alboin; immediately after a Lombard/Avar coalition destroyed in 567 the Gepids, with the Byzantines this time neutral.
  • I tried to use an expression that would convey that more than the simple migration of a Germanic tribe, Alboin put together a vast coalition of peoples (this is a point on which scholars hammer a lot). Hopefully, the fist paragraph in Alboin#Preparations_and_departure_from_Pannonia should make this clear.
  • My mistake here, I should have used "crossing" instead of "passing".
  • By "disintegration" I meant that Alboin's control over his army weakened, even if I have a feeling that disintegration my be a bit too strong word. Aldux (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what this means: "he notes a similarity between Peredeo's name and the Latin word peritus, meaning "lost", and represents all the Lombards who have betrayed and passed to the service of the Empire." Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not surprised of that: I forgot to say thas the "he" is Goffart. As for Perideo, Goffart is arguing that Paul's cubicularius is not a really existed historical figure but a symbol of all those Lombards that have betrayed the Lombard nation to become mercenaries in the imperial army; and by betraying they have "lost" themselves (Latin periti). I hope the concept is clear now. Aldux (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And another thing: couldn't "treacherous" be a bit too strong and pov? After all, serving as mercenaries for the Empire was typical among Germanic peoples, Lombards included. This is a moral judgement passed by the Paul, reflecting his perspective (on which, having used "betrayed", I too may have not bene nuanced enough).Aldux (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I was just reflecting your "betrayed". Why not not just drop the valued judgement altogether and simply say "those Lombards who chose to become mercenaries in the imperial army"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, good point.Aldux (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the birth date is it OK to put "c. 530" in the lead? That could imply that he may have been born before 530, which for issues of chronology is impossible.Aldux (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

          • I see what you mean. I don't know what the "official" notation might be, but I've changed it back to "530s". Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

bad grammmar[edit]

"kidnapping of Cunimund's daughter Rosamund, whom she was immediately forced to marry." This syntax should mean that some woman was forced to marry Rosamund. Please fix as appropriate. (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anachronistic place names?[edit]

Early history of southern Europe is a long way from being a specialist subject of mine, but I have to query the grounds for frequent references to Italy in the 6th century. Was there any meaningful sense in which there was an entity called Italy at that time? Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Italy" is fine in the period following the Gothic War, but "Venetia" before the founding even of Venice itself? Not so good.--Wetman (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm too hasty: just ignore me: Regio X was that of Venetiae et Histriae.--Wetman (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Which "him"?[edit]

The Gepids obtained the support of the Emperor in exchange for a promise to cede him the region of Sirmium. I surmise that the "him" here is Cunimund. But the wording is too unclear to edit.--Wetman (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


I changed the map that contains the extension of the Lombard kingdom at the death of Alboin (572), because it's wrong: the duchies of Benevento, Spoleto and Tuscia were created only since 575/576, year of the decisive defeat of Baduarius and the rebellion of the Lombards who were foederatus of the Empire (Zotto and Faroald). --Glz19 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)